Apparently, some folks are unhappy with the NRA’s actions leading up to the passage of SB 308. In fact, they’re so riddled with angst, they’re quitting the NRA and urging others to do so.
Why? The claim is that the NRA withdrew their support for the bill because the language re-legalizing carry in the insecure areas of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport was stripped from the final version. Allegations have been made that NRA lobbyists pressured Senators to vote against the bill, and that they attempted to “sabotage” it.
As far as I can gather, this comes from three sources:
- a poorly-written article with a misspelled title
- a claim from an organization that’s voiced hostility to the NRA before, and
- the utterances of two Senators who were opposed to the bill’s passage.
Of course, none of the three people who foamed at the mouth to me about it in person could tell me exactly what was said, who said it, or in what context it was said.
Well, if you’re making a claim like that, I’d expect proof, not hearsay.
So, what evidence do we have? Not much. Senators Orrock and Thompson both claimed that the bill lacked NRA support, but both are staunchly anti-gun, and well, I’ve known those people to play fast and loose with the truth at times. Senator Seabaugh, who is in our corner, only mentioned that the NRA had “issues” with the bill as passed. That doesn’t mean outright opposition.
To my knowledge, Mr. Seabaugh has made no clarifying statement on the matter.
Reading through Randy Kozuch’s letter to the Senator from March, I’m having trouble seeing the acrimony:
Dear Senator Seabaugh:
I am writing on behalf of NRA’s tens-of-thousands of members in Georgia to state that NRA fully supports Senate Bill 308, with the adoption of Amendment 29 0865. I greatly appreciate your help with promoting this critical legislation, but want to specifically thank you for your efforts regarding this amendment. As you know, SB 308–along with AM 29 0865–represents a dramatic improvement to Georgia’s laws regulating the concealed carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens. This legislation expands where license holders may lawfully carry their firearms and has the potential to expand the number of states that will recognize a Georgia license. These improvements, as well as others contained in this legislation, are advancements that NRA and its Georgia members proudly support.
The ILA Grassroots Division flatly denied the truth of Senator Thompson’s comments, rightly pointing out that he and Orrock both have failing ratings with the NRA. Kaelan Jones’ emails on the matter have been quoted ad infinitum on the boards, so I won’t repeat them here. They are not in the least bit ambiguous in their denial. Michael Frazer (comment on 04/30/2010, 13:54) confirms this.
NRA did not oppose the bill. That is simply a lie.
We supported the legislation throughout the process. However, we were concerned about some last minute changes to the legislation that we believe could adversely affect our members. We made some suggestions to fix a potential problem in the language but they were not accepted.
Seems fairly clear to me.
I may not always agree with them. In fact, I’ve had serious issues with some of their strategies. Still, I stand with the NRA. If it were not for them, we would not even be in a position to debate these matters.
This whole situation is juvenile and petty, and splitting the ranks with baseless accusations serves no constructive purpose.
7 thoughts on “NRA Bashing”
Baseless? Were *you* there? The people who made the accusations were there, and reported what they saw firsthand. These are also people I have been at meetings with at the Capitol, volunteering their time, in order to support out right to protect ourselves in the streets of Georgia. From my personal experience, I give these same people the benefit of doubt when it comes to what they say. I would need ample evidence they were lying in order to believe otherwise.
I never said anybody was lying, only that I have seen no evidence. Who, what and when?
I’m not the one making serious allegations. The burden of proof falls on those doing so.
I have to wonder if the people calling on others to quit the NRA have really considered the wisdom of such a measure.
Thank you for sharing this information.
Im glad the NRA was paying attention to the last minute changes being offered to the bill.
Otherwise, who knows what would have happened to the final bill!
Erik, none of these people that were there have called for everyone to bail on the NRA. Only after hearing this, people took their own initiative to stop sending money to the NRA. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Get your facts straight first.
You can watch exactly what and how Senator Seabaugh (and Nan Orrock) said what they said about the NRA by watching the Senate SB308 CCR vote archive at http://mediam1.gpb.org/ga/leg/2010/ga-leg-senate_042910_PM2_SINE%20DIE.wmv and skipping foward to approx. 3:41:00.
I am in partial agreement with you. Any Senator or Representative who saw the unethical behavior described by Ed Stone of the NRA lobbyist should speak out. And speak out now.
However, there is too much smoke to not be concerned about a fire. Randy Kozuch’s letter and the video linked above this comments are telling.
Sen. Seabaugh doesn’t just say that the NRA had issues. He referred to events “outside the ropes”. That’s where the lobbyists can talk to the legislators. Furthermore, if Sen Seabaugh did receive that letter from Randy Kozuch described above, why didn’t he wave it in the air when Senator Orrock said the NRA didn’t support his bill? Apparently, he can’t because of what the NRA lobbyist is saying or doing in the hallway “outside the ropes”.
Again, I agree that we need a Senator or a Representative to speak up about this incident. Even if the lobbyist acted improperly, if it it who I think it is, then he represents several big time interests at the ATL capitol and getting him fired from NRA representation may make things difficult even for an upstanding legislator.
That’s a hard thing to do when the “facts” are only innuendo. I’m not the one making accusations, and the burden of proof isn’t mine here. It falls squarely on those who are quitting the NRA over this, and who have tried (poorly, I might add) to convince me to do so.
You want to quit? Fine. Quit shooting, then. Whether or not you know it, you are riding the NRA’s coat-tails, and you have been doing so all your life. Should you choose not to support them, you have no moral right to reap the benefits of their work.
Without them, we wouldn’t have a shooting culture in this country. We’d have a national gun registry by now, with handguns and high-capacity rifles likely having been banned before you were born. CCW would only exist in a few holdout states, and unregulated gun shows would be a thing of the past.
Want to buy a gun? Good luck. If not for the NRA, most American firearms manufacturers would have been sued out of business in the 1990’s, and imported firearms would be restricted to law enforcement and the military.
Good luck finding a range to shoot, as environmental regulations and zoning ordinances would have driven them all out had the NRA not been involved. Don’t expect to find an instructor who’s not an NRA member, nor should you expect to find a hunter-safety class for your kids.
Don’t come whining to me about it: you quit.
Agreed. There is some serious smoke, but until I see flames licking at the rafters, I’m not running out the door.
NRA lobbyists are often hired guns, and if I’m correct, Mr. White is. If his actions or utterances were out of line, he can be removed. Trust me, if that turns out to be the case, I’ll be the first demanding it, and it should be doable.
That said, my problem is with the knee-jerk reaction I’ve heard from several people, almost as if they were waiting for something like this to happen. These folks don’t seem to see the distinction between the ILA and the NRA proper, and quitting doesn’t help anything.
Membership dues do not support the ILA (or the PVA). By law, they cannot dip into them for political lobbying. Hence the phone calls and letters they send to members. The ILA relies solely on donations for their work.
If someone’s unhappy with the ILA (and shows no interest in improving it), then they can simply choose not to send money when asked. I’ve seen the numbers, and I can tell you that the vast majority of NRA members don’t send money as it is. The ILA budget is a scant fraction of the NRA budget, and they are stretched much thinner than the media seems to think.
Perhaps if more people got off the couch and got involved with the ILA, we wouldn’t have these misunderstandings.