NRA screws us again

[Buzzgun]

LOL.......
The ballot is a joke? How so?
You have the same voice you have with the Congress. Email and calling in your displeasure.
If your sending in a complaint to a kansas congressman and you live in Ok, your pissing in the wind.
If your from Ok sending to an ok congressman/woman, you might have a little voice.

How many times have the congress went along with YOUR requests? In theory, the constituents should determine what their representative does in office. That's how it supposed to work.

I can and have made direct phone calls to Inhofe's office in DC and he PERSONALLY returned my call within a few hours and offered to personally act on the issue I was having. I can call or visit the offices of any of my reps and senators and can make an appointment to meet with them.......

Again, what is LaPierre's number so I can visit with him??

I have actually visited the NRA headquarters in Fairfax and I can tell you, you don't just walk in and request a meeting with LaPierre or Cox......they are very well insulated from run-of-the-mill members.

 

[dennishoddy]

I can and have made direct phone calls to Inhofe's office in DC and he PERSONALLY returned my call within a few hours and offered to personally act on the issue I was having. I can call or visit the offices of any of my reps and senators and can make an appointment to meet with them.......

Again, what is LaPierre's number so I can visit with him??

I have actually visited the NRA headquarters in Fairfax and I can tell you, you don't just walk in and request a meeting with LaPierre or Cox......they are very well insulated from run-of-the-mill members.

You have a lot more stroke than I do then. I just get form letters.

 

[dennishoddy]

Good grief, how hard was that?

You seriously expect someone to dig through multiple threads just to find your stance on a question in the current thread?

I read every post in every thread on this forum. That's why I said I'm not doing your homework. I do mine, and pretty much have a handle on the stance of everybody that posts on this forum that's been active.

 

[gerhard1]

I've got mixed emotions on this. I support the NRA but recognize EPOs are a slippery slope to abuse by the neighbor down the street who has a beef with you, or even the government itself (think IRS abuses during the 2012 elections). But, considering the nut case in Florida where an EPO was used - I can see the "theory" behind it.

If EPOs are going to be supported, it can only be AFTER Due Process. But, I'd also like to know what that Due Process looks like. In the case of the Florida nut case - expedited Due Process while under surveillance would seem appropriate to me.

Agreed: just because we disagree with some of what they do now, please don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Given adequate documentation that an individual is a threat, (such as there seems to have been with Cruz) I don't think a law providing for the seizure and/or surrender of any firearms possessed by that person is unreasonable.

Please note what I just wrote. Given adequate documentation of a credible threat, I support such a law. What I don't support is a law permitting such an order because your neighbor up the street decides to turn you in just because he or she doesn't like guns, and you have them. The subject of the order should be allowed to contest it before the order is issued and all evidence presented would have meet a higher legal standard than preponderance of the evidence. I suggest clear and convincing.

Also, it strikes me as just that the person making a frivolous complaint should be subject to heavy damages.

Would something like this perhaps be something we could talk about?

 

[OKCHunter]

Would something like this perhaps be something we could talk about?

Sure - it sounds like we are close to thinking along the same lines. I certainly don’t want sick-minded individuals to have access to firearms - although they will use some other means to carry-out their evil intent (think Austin Bombings). My biggest concern is that an individual receives true due process with legal representation before seizure of his property. We have far too many instances where government minutia results in unjust actions against individuals or simply an abuse of power.

 

[caojyn]

Copied from the HR5103 Thread about the substantial increase in NFA taxes

"I was hoping the NRA would have come out against this (as it was introduced a month ago) but I'm not seeing any response from them, if they come out against it and push for the HR 367 to pass i'd seriously consider renewing my long lapsed membership."

 

[dennishoddy]

Copied from the HR5103 Thread about the substantial increase in NFA taxes

"I was hoping the NRA would have come out against this (as it was introduced a month ago) but I'm not seeing any response from them, if they come out against it and push for the HR 367 to pass i'd seriously consider renewing my long lapsed membership."

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC) and John Carter (TX-31) on Monday for introducing the Hearing Protection Act, an important bill that gives gun owners and sportsmen the opportunity to better protect their ears and hearing.

“Many gun owners and sportsmen suffer severe hearing loss after years of shooting, and yet the tool necessary to reduce such loss is onerously regulated and taxed. It doesn’t make any sense,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act would allow people easier access to suppressors, which would help them to better protect their hearing.”

The Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367, would remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act, replacing the federal transfer process with a National Instant Criminal Background Check. The bill would reduce the cost of purchasing a suppressor by removing the $200 transfer tax.

Suppressors are often mischaracterized in Hollywood. They do not “silence” the sound of a firearm. Instead, they act as mufflers and can reduce the noise of a gunshot to hearing safe levels. Not only do suppressors reduce hearing damage for the shooter, they reduce the noise of ranges located near residential areas.

H.R. 367 would make it easier for gun owners and sportsmen to purchase suppressors in the 42 states where they are currently legal. Purchasers would have to pass a background check to buy them, and prohibited people would be denied.

NRA is proud to have partnered with the American Suppressor Association on this important legislation.

“Gun owners and sportsmen should be able to practice their sport with the tools necessary to do so safely. This bill makes it easier for them to do that,” concluded Cox.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...oduction-of-the-hearing-protection-act-hr-367

 

[rc508pir]

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC) and John Carter (TX-31) on Monday for introducing the Hearing Protection Act, an important bill that gives gun owners and sportsmen the opportunity to better protect their ears and hearing.

“Many gun owners and sportsmen suffer severe hearing loss after years of shooting, and yet the tool necessary to reduce such loss is onerously regulated and taxed. It doesn’t make any sense,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act would allow people easier access to suppressors, which would help them to better protect their hearing.”

The Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367, would remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act, replacing the federal transfer process with a National Instant Criminal Background Check. The bill would reduce the cost of purchasing a suppressor by removing the $200 transfer tax.

Suppressors are often mischaracterized in Hollywood. They do not “silence” the sound of a firearm. Instead, they act as mufflers and can reduce the noise of a gunshot to hearing safe levels. Not only do suppressors reduce hearing damage for the shooter, they reduce the noise of ranges located near residential areas.

H.R. 367 would make it easier for gun owners and sportsmen to purchase suppressors in the 42 states where they are currently legal. Purchasers would have to pass a background check to buy them, and prohibited people would be denied.

NRA is proud to have partnered with the American Suppressor Association on this important legislation.

“Gun owners and sportsmen should be able to practice their sport with the tools necessary to do so safely. This bill makes it easier for them to do that,” concluded Cox.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...oduction-of-the-hearing-protection-act-hr-367

Thought the bill was shelved for now, and I havnt heard anyone talk about it for over a month (to include the NRA)

 

[caojyn]

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC) and John Carter (TX-31) on Monday for introducing the Hearing Protection Act, an important bill that gives gun owners and sportsmen the opportunity to better protect their ears and hearing.

“Many gun owners and sportsmen suffer severe hearing loss after years of shooting, and yet the tool necessary to reduce such loss is onerously regulated and taxed. It doesn’t make any sense,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act would allow people easier access to suppressors, which would help them to better protect their hearing.”

The Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367, would remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act, replacing the federal transfer process with a National Instant Criminal Background Check. The bill would reduce the cost of purchasing a suppressor by removing the $200 transfer tax.

Suppressors are often mischaracterized in Hollywood. They do not “silence” the sound of a firearm. Instead, they act as mufflers and can reduce the noise of a gunshot to hearing safe levels. Not only do suppressors reduce hearing damage for the shooter, they reduce the noise of ranges located near residential areas.

H.R. 367 would make it easier for gun owners and sportsmen to purchase suppressors in the 42 states where they are currently legal. Purchasers would have to pass a background check to buy them, and prohibited people would be denied.

NRA is proud to have partnered with the American Suppressor Association on this important legislation.

“Gun owners and sportsmen should be able to practice their sport with the tools necessary to do so safely. This bill makes it easier for them to do that,” concluded Cox.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...oduction-of-the-hearing-protection-act-hr-367

I found that article when I was checking the status of the hearing and protection act, but it’s over a year old. Do they still support it? Have they released anything more recently ( this year)?
One would think if they were serious about it, they’d have brought it up again. An organization that is as big , powerful, and influential as the NRA could get the bill unshelved.
As a side note I’ve gotten at least 3 NRA membership renewal statements since New Years.

 

[mightymouse]

The NRA is not screwing anyone out of their Second Amendment rights. White males, many of them teenagers, but with the occasional old fogey thrown in, have been doing that for you and I since at least as far back as Columbine. Thanks to the work of those feckin' idiots, who have committed mass murder after mass murder, we now hear about some other feckin' idiot just about every day who was planning to have his 15 minutes of infamy and shoot up a school. The Left wants to blame the NRA for these shootings, while the Right wants to dog the NRA for pissing away their rights in the aftermath of such shootings. Neither side has a clue.