N.R.A. vs G.O.A.?

[Ballenxj]

Lately I've been giving this a lot of thought. National Rifle Association has been around longer, but lately I've been hearing that Gun Owners of America fights harder for our 2nd amendment rights.
Please share your thoughts, experience, and or expertise on the subject.
I have been a member of both, and it's time to renew. I want to put my money where it'll do the most good.
-Bruce

[gdvan01]

Oh man, that's like asking which is the best AR...or which .45 ACP is best. Personally, of the two the NRA is my only association.


/breaks out the popcorn

[Kreyzhorse]

In my opinion, the NRA is the best option. It's not perfect, but if you check out their website and research their involvement in the legal issues involving gun ownership, you'll see NRA is active and involved in the issues that impact all of us.

[buzz_knox]

A lot of the attacks against the NRA are actually membership drives for other groups.

When politicians and gun grabbers rail against a group, they attack the NRA. I take that as a positive.

There's nothing barring someone from belonging to as many groups as possible, if you can get past the stupid sectarian warfare that's dividing the RKBA movement.

[Old Timer]

I am an NRA member and will remain one, but I still think the NRA has lost its way on some important issues. One of the current issues where I strongly disagree with the NRA is their unfortunate support of H.R. 4900. First they call the ATF&E "jack booted thugs" then they want to give them even more ammunition to use against gun dealers! Go figure!

[johnbt]

This has been on their site since July...

"Help Wanted


Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners of America are looking to hire an energetic person with a marketing degree or marketing experience to promote both organizations and oversee events. Must be willing to locate to Sacramento, California area. Travel required."

...I guess they're having trouble filling it. It's a real shame, what with this being an election year and all.

John

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by gdvan01

Oh man, that's like asking which is the best AR

That would be way too easy in my mind, "Colt".

Originally Posted by gdvan01

/breaks out the popcorn

Actually, I'm asking a serious question here, looking for serious answers. I hope I'm not wrong about this place?
OK, Back to being serious. I know there has got to be a lot of experience here on this site, and that's what I'm hoping to tap into.
Thanks to those that have tried. Answers like those from Old Timer's, Johnbt's, buzz_knox's, & Kreyzhorse's that actually bring up issues, Pro, or Con. I appreciate that, as well as any more to come. Thanks guys.
We need to get real serious about this given the coming political climate.
-Bruce

[john in jax]

The NRA is HUGE, rich and powerful. All that money gives it lots of influence over politicians at all levels of government. But recently the NRA seems more willing to compromise with the Anti's on anti-gun laws/policies.

GOA is much smaller and doesn't have near the influence over politicians that the NRA does but is rabidly pro-gun and does not compromise anti's.

IMO if you have a little extra $$$ joining both would not be a bad idea.

[mvpel]

Lately I've been giving this a lot of thought. National Rifle Association has been around longer, but lately I've been hearing that Gun Owners of America fights harder for our 2nd amendment rights.

Well, any given palooka might "fight harder" than Oscar De La Hoya does against a given opponent, but does that mean that the palooka should be the point man in the fight? Bolo punches don't win the match.

That's not to say that GOA is not effective in much of what it sets out to do, but when you need long reach to deliver the Sunday punch, you need the NRA.

Even Bill Clinton understands this fact.

[PT111]

Oh man, that's like asking which is the best AR...or which .45 ACP is best. Personally, of the two the NRA is my only association.


/breaks out the popcorn

More like which is better the AR or a 1911.

They both have similar goals but different ways of getting there The GOA does not seem to compromise on anything and so gets left out of getting anyghing done many times. On the other hand the NRA is too ready to compromise for many people's taste but does get some things done although not as much as most people want. If you are the liberty or death type the then GOA is for you but if you are ready to sit down at the negoiating table the the NRA is more your type.

/I like carmel popcorn myself.

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by john in jax

IMO if you have a little extra $$$ joining both would not be a bad idea.

I've considered this.

Originally Posted by PT111

They both have similar goals but different ways of getting there The GOA does not seem to compromise on anything and so gets left out of getting anyghing done many times. On the other hand the NRA is too ready to compromise for many people's taste but does get some things done although not as much as most people want. If you are the liberty or death type the then GOA is for you but if you are ready to sit down at the negoiating table the the NRA is more your type.

Makes sense, Thanks.

Originally Posted by PT111

/I like carmel popcorn myself.

Me too, but it sticks to my teeth.
-Bruce

[raimius]

The NRA holds more lobbying power, takes a more moderated stance, and is willing to make some compromises (which can hurt if you are a fan of things like NFA items, etc).

The GOA does not seem to compromise, takes the more extreme/hard-line stances, and does not hold nearly as much sway.

I like some of the GOA's positions, but they occasionally target our allies, which is a shame, IMO. I think the NRA is better for getting legislation passed (or blocked).

[allenomics]

Does GOA have Eddie Eagle, Women On Target, extensive and successful gun safety classes for multitudes of people; from LEO to children? Does GOA have a related foundation that has awarded over $100,000,000 in grants to hundreds of organizations from Boy Scouts to ROTC?

[Dfariswheel]

It seems the GOA spends most of it's time running the NRA down and not accomplishing anything at all.
As example, the GOA raves about the NRA being too willing to compromise, but it was the NRA that went to court for the people of New Orleans.
You never hear about GOA lawyers showing up to help a gun owner.
Most people, including a lot of gun owners have never heard of the GOA.

As for which is most effective, here's a little test.
Go out on the street and stop the first person you see.
Ask them about "the gun lobby".
99% of the time they'll say, "You mean the NRA?"
Ask about the "GOA" and they'll have no idea what you're talking about.

With that said, join both if you can, but the best bang for your buck is the NRA.

[44 AMP]

With many of the things the NRA has "allowed" in recent years, and prefer a more hardline stance. NRA positions seeking the greatest good for the greatest numner of gun owners get them blamed as being "sellouts", and "too willing to compromise". Things like the NRA "compromising" on a bill that restricted armor piercing ammunition was shouted to the heavens in some quarters, but the alternative, a fight to the death (which we might have lost) over a bill that would have banned virtually ALL centerfire rifle ammo was never mentioned by those who felt betrayed by the NRA "compromise".

When you take a no compromise at all, ever type of stand, like the GOA often does, you quickly find that only fellow fanatics will listen to you. The huge middle ground people (who consider themselves as reasonable and intelligent) will consider you a "nut". This can often have the effect of making the anti's (the real nuts) case seem more reasonable and acceptable. It often works against the greater good.

When it comes to the issues of guns in the political arena, the NRA is the 800lb gorilla. And it is because the NRA is more than just a political gun rights group.

Join both, but if you must make a choice, support the NRA. Politicians know the NRA, and know what NRA members can do in the voting booth when they act together. None of the other progun groups have as much clout as the NRA, and the politicians know this too!

[mvpel]

The NRA holds more lobbying power, takes a more moderated stance, and is willing to make some compromises (which can hurt if you are a fan of things like NFA items, etc).

But which can help when the compromise in question, with a powerful oncoming legislative charge by the President and influential members of Congress to ban "assault weapons," is to include a sunset provision in the legislation.

[Tom Servo]

One of the current issues where I strongly disagree with the NRA is their unfortunate support of H.R. 4900.

I thought HR 4900 was a bill to reform the ATF? Was I incorrect?

In any case, I'm unhappy with the NRA's compromises on the NFA and 1968 GCA. They often fail to support local and state-level initiatives. In fact, I was very unhappy with their lack of interest in an important set of reforms here in Georgia last year, almost to the point of ending my membership.

However, they are still the primary driving force, and without them, forums like this wouldn't exist today, because we wouldn't have guns.

I'm a member of both organizations, but the GOA is a bit...too enthusiastic and dogmatic at times (we also have a local group like that), while the NRA is a bit too soft at times. I think we need both, however.

[buzz_knox]

I think we need both, however.

Exactly. They both serve a purpose, if nothing more than insuring that the negatives of both are counterbalanced.

[jfrey]

The NRA has compromised my rights one too many times (10 round mags.) and is too close with the beltway boys in DC. You send in your dues and then get mail weekly wanting more money. I'll stick to the GOA. They don't compromise!

[Silver Bullet]

I'll stick to the GOA. They don't compromise

Nor do they accomplish anything.

Here's the NRA in action in today's news:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...st-obama-guns/

Can your beer do this ?

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

In any case, I'm unhappy with the NRA's compromises on the NFA and 1968 GCA.

I keep seeing this brought up. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that Tom, along with a whole bunch of the members here, weren't even around when either of these things happened.

I know I wasn't for the NFA, and I was only 7 when the GCA was passed.

While that alone doesn't necessarily invalidate what Tom has said, it may shed a little light on why people feel the way they do, about this.

You see, back in those days, the NRA was not a political player. The only thing they were worried about were their hunters and sportsman (shotgunners). So they didn't get involved in legislation unless they thought it might hurt their base. The NRA didn't turn to lobbying until the mid-70's, IIRC.

So to constantly bring this up (NFA and the '68 GCA) is really a red herring, as there were no (none, nada) pro-gun lobbying groups back then.

As for the GOA, unless and until Larry Pratt decides to honestly review legislation and quit sounding alarms over supposed threats; and until Larry Pratt quits denigrating the NRA, in order to suck some of its members into his organization, I'm not even gonna recognize it as a legitimate pro-gun organization.

The GOA has proposed no legislation; The GOA has blocked no gun-control measures; The GOA has filed no briefs to the Courts, solely in its own name and the GOA has absolutely no clout as a lobbying organization, before any legislature (State or Federal).

The only thing it (GOA) has done with any success, is to get a grass-roots movement going. The caveat here, is that many (most?) times it is for some legislation that the NRA opposes and against whatever legislation the NRA supports.

The GOA is, in my opinion, divisive and plays into the hands of the anti-gun folks.

If you want another effective organization to belong to (other than or in addition to the NRA), try the SAF.

They have filed lawsuits. They have filed amici briefs (in their own name, not merely as one of a large group) to various Circuit Courts and the SCOTUS. They have lobbied directly for and against various legislation (both State and Federal). They are also good at getting grass-roots movements going. They have co-operated with the NRA, when it was in their interests to do so. They strike out on their own when it is prudent. They do not bash other pro-gun groups.

The SAF is unifying.

[Silver Bullet]

Very well said.

[johnbt]

"As for the GOA, unless and until Larry Pratt decides to honestly review legislation and quit sounding alarms over supposed threats; and until Larry Pratt quits denigrating the NRA, in order to suck some of its members into his organization, I'm not even gonna recognize it as a legitimate pro-gun organization."

Well put.

Has he been on vacation recently? I haven't seen his usual flood of nonsense e-mails cut-and-pasted all over the net. I hope he hasn't been ill.

John

[Tom Servo]

You see, back in those days, the NRA was not a political player. The only thing they were worried about were their hunters and sportsman (shotgunners). So they didn't get involved in legislation unless they thought it might hurt their base. The NRA didn't turn to lobbying until the mid-70's, IIRC.

Very true; I just wish they'd gotten their feathers a bit more ruffled and gotten the word out at the time.

The NRA was founded to encourage and develop good marksmanship and safety skills. The ILA stuff is a side venture. It's become a very important part of what they do, but some folks (especially antis) lose sight of the the NRA's original purpose.

The "no compromise, ever!" folks swing a little too far to the extremes.

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

If you want another effective organization to belong to (other than or in addition to the NRA), try the SAF.

Thank You for posting this! This sounds like a good "GIT ER DONE!" outfit.
Here's a copy & paste from their website;

SAF Files Amici Curiae Brief in Lawsuit; DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Breaking News: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear DC vs Heller overturning the DC Gun Ban. Alan Gura, the attorney arguing for Americans' Gun Rights and one of the main forces behind the Parker case, has posted the filings to the Supreme Court. We have mirrored the most recent filings on our website; see the links below.

For those who want to read *all* of the filings, Mr. Gura has made them available.

SAF, CCRKBA and Madison Society, along with a dozen university law professors, have filed an amicus brief in the suit to overturn the DC Gun Ban. Additionally, 13 state Attorneys General filed an amici curiae brief in support of the SAF position to protect the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Click the links below to read the lawsuit filings. Requires the no-cost Adobe Acrobat Reader™ or other pdf viewer software.

* Parker Amicus Curiae Brief (pdf)(2 MB)
* State Attorneys General Amicus Brief (pdf)(1.5 MiB)
* Decision (pdf)(194 KiB)
* DC Application to Extend Certiorari (pdf)(164 KiB)
* Application Opposing Extention Of Certiorari (pdf)(95 KiB)
* Order Granting Certiorari (pdf)(40 KiB)
* Heller Amicus Curiae Brief (pdf)(230 KiB)

SAF Sues to Overturn San Francisco Gun Ban

Breaking News: The city appealled SAF's intial victory overturning the San Francisco Gun Gun. The California Appeals Court has just unanimously ruled to uphold the lower court's decision, so SAF has won again. The city can now appeal to the California Supreme Court, but given the unanimous ruling, it is unlikely they will hear the case. The decision is available as the last item listed below.

Click the links below to read the lawsuit filings. Requires the no-cost Adobe Acrobat Reader™ or other pdf viewer software.

* Petition for Writ of Mandate (pdf)(4 MB)
filed with Court of Appeals and referred back to Superior Court
* Petition for Writ of Mandate (pdf)(3 MB)
filed with Superior Court
* Objection and Motion to Strike, Memorandum of Points & Authorities (pdf)(386 KB)
* Reply to City's Opposition to Motion for Writ of Mandate (pdf)(1.7 MB)
* Statement of Decision Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate (pdf)(1.5 MB)
* Appeals Court Decision (pdf)(85 KB)

SAF Stops New Orleans Gun Confiscation

SAF has negotiated with the City of New Orleans to return the guns they illegally-siezed from law-abiding citizens in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina. If you had a gun siezed, read these instructions on how to get it returned to you. If you have any problems please contact us.

Click the links below to read the lawsuit filings. Requires the no-cost Adobe Acrobat Reader™ or other pdf viewer software.

* Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief (pdf)
* Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction (pdf)
* Consent Order (pdf)
* Motion to Hold Defendents, and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Hold Defendents C. Ray Nagin and Warren Riley In Contempt of the Consent Order (pdf)
* Memorandum in Opposition to Defendents Motion to Dismiss (pdf)
* Motion to Compel for Contempt (pdf)
* Order for Contempt (pdf)

VERY IMPRESSIVE Record. Thanks again.
-Bruce