NRA/ORA stand on open carry?

[Jefpainthorse]

Devil's Advocate here...maybe the NRA figured that a "conservative" state like this could pull up their own jockstrap on a no brainer bill about "gun rights"

I have never been in lockstep with the NRA (yearly member), but they have done some very good work this year in states that really NEED the help.

Just remember "who did what" comes election time

 

[Wind]

The paid lobbyist is not going to do jack sh*t in this state. However, she wants to be kept informed about what is happening so she can report to the NRA-ILA what is going on.
It makes her appear as she is doing her job.
I talked to an NRA elected official about this and all he could say was she does a great job. Smoke blows up hill and down hill, into and out of the state legislature and into NRA-ILA headquarters.
I'm a Life Member of the NRA and it pisses me off the lobbyists are much like the legislators - empty shirts full of smoke and BS with very little substance.
Get on the phone and raise hell with EVERYBODY you know of in the legislature and the NRA.
The NRA doesn't belong to the average shooter anymore. It belongs to some country club set who want to pat themselves on the back about what a good job they are doing.
Next legislative session the shooters and 2A supporters in this state need to organize on their own and forget these leeches who are paid to do a job and don't.

 

[sanjuro893]

Politics.

They played the odds betting that Henry would veto the bill.

They won. Now they can say they voted progun. Those that changed their votes will leave that part out. Those that weaseled out by not voting at all on the override can say they voted for the bill and didn't vote not to override (or didn't change their vote). True because they didn't vote thus they didn't technically change it.

This situation is a good example of why so many politicians are considered slime balls.

My rep. decided to remind me about his "A" rating from the NRA and that he's a member of ORA when I sent him an e-mail. I honestly don't care what "rating" he has from anybody. The only rating he should care about is whether his constituents are satisfied with his representation or not.

 

[elcaBob]

I don't mind the NRA staying out of this fight...it's the National Rifle Association. This was a state issue with very little in the way of broad implication on the overall interpretation/application of the 2nd. All it did was allow those already licensed to carry do so in a different manner. It didn't expand the right to carry to those previously restricted or chip away at government gun control.

So, what are all the state offices for the NRA for? Oh yeah, fundraising. Pathetic.

 

[skyydiver]

This is why I'm a life member of nothing.

 

[Michael Brown]

I don't mind the NRA staying out of this fight...it's the National Rifle Association. This was a state issue with very little in the way of broad implication on the overall interpretation/application of the 2nd. All it did was allow those already licensed to carry do so in a different manner. It didn't expand the right to carry to those previously restricted or chip away at government gun control.

I'd rather the NRA and GOA save their powder for the big federal fights that will be coming soon.

ORA on the other hand has pretty much cemeted themselves in my mind as a useless, show piece club. This is exactly the kind of fight a State gun owners association should have tackled or at least showed up for.

I agree.

I still believe the NRA to be the best lobbyist group for us as gun owners in Washington.

Michael Brown

 

[DirtyDawg]

I agree.

I still believe the NRA to be the best lobbyist group for us as gun owners in Washington.

Michael Brown

Here's a different perspective on just "what the NRA has done for us". It is my opinion that the NRA has hoodwinked its members into believing the NRA is a pro 2nd Amendment organization. The more I read and the more "lack of action" by the NRA...the more proof I find to support my opinion. This is a long, but historical read of the NRA. It gets good at the post 7 or 8 where "pickenup" makes his blog post.

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=451774

 

[Michael Brown]

Here's a different perspective on just "what the NRA has done for us". It is my opinion that the NRA has hoodwinked its members into believing the NRA is a pro 2nd Amendment organization. The more I read and the more "lack of action" by the NRA...the more proof I find to support my opinion. This is a long, but historical read of the NRA. It gets good at the post 7 or 8 where "pickenup" makes his blog post.

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=451774

Personally I do not accept this person's posts as "proof" of anything.

I believe this person has a beef (legitimate or illegitimate) and has presented some anecdotes to support his belief.

I find it somewhat persuasive but certainly not rising to the level of "proof" and certainly not enough to cause me to stop supporting the strongest lobbyist group we've had in Washington as gun owners.

I am also not in the "no compromise" camp when it comes to firearms. I believe there is a limit to what arms a person may own and do not believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute just as the 1st Amendment is not absolute.

I recognize and respect that others disagree with this but I do not accept their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and I believe I am in educated company in this opinion.

Michael Brown

 

[Spiff]

Personally I do not accept this person's posts as "proof" of anything.

I believe this person has a beef (legitimate or illegitimate) and has presented some anecdotes to support his belief.

I find it somewhat persuasive but certainly not rising to the level of "proof" and certainly not enough to cause me to stop supporting the strongest lobbyist group we've had in Washington as gun owners.

I am also not in the "no compromise" camp when it comes to firearms. I believe there is a limit to what arms a person may own and do not believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute just as the 1st Amendment is not absolute.

I recognize and respect that others disagree with this but I do not accept their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and I believe I am in educated company in this opinion.

Michael Brown

Michael -

I'm curious as to where you believe the line exists. I'm not sure I agree that "arms" includes Javelins, Apaches, and JDAMs, but I also believe that there is nothing wrong with citizens owning and freely transferring machineguns. Where I have difficulty is articulating where the limits are.

 

[Shadowrider]

Personally I do not accept this person's posts as "proof" of anything.

I believe this person has a beef (legitimate or illegitimate) and has presented some anecdotes to support his belief.

I find it somewhat persuasive but certainly not rising to the level of "proof" and certainly not enough to cause me to stop supporting the strongest lobbyist group we've had in Washington as gun owners.

Agreed.

I am also not in the "no compromise" camp when it comes to firearms. I believe there is a limit to what arms a person may own and do not believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute just as the 1st Amendment is not absolute.

I also am curious about where you draw the line. Considering the arms that were available at the time the 2A was drafted it's pretty clear that the framers wanted us to have the same level of armament as the government. If "we" are armed with inferior technology compared to the .gov, it kinds of makes the whole concept of the 2A moot, does it not?