Is GOA trying to get their members in trouble?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SomeKid

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
1,544
Location
FL
I just opened a letter today from them, it was an attempt to get us to support HR 2424, a bill by Ron Paul to remove the stupid school 'safety' zones. A good idea. But talk about doing a good thing the wrong way.

The letter comments on SC changing carry laws to allow CCP holders to carry on school premises. I could be wrong, but I heard that it was amended so it just let you keep them in your car. (I hope I was wrong, because the GOA is stating this as fact that you can carry on school campuses, from elementary through college levels.)

I do know for a fact they were wrong with the following paragraph regarding changes in TN law. They state that Rep. Nicely got a repeal on the gun ban on property owned by city county and state governments. I know this is flat out wrong. Rep. Nicely's bill was deferred until 1/1/2008. In other words, it was killed in this session. If you DO carry on certain government owned lands, you are committing a felony.

As a GOA lifer, it astounds me that they would be so irresponsible. Anybody know who to yell at over this one?
 
GOA, etc are 2nd tier one-horse organizations that are essentially run from their living rooms. All the money you pay to them essentially goes for current salaries. Management is not subject to election, etc.

It remains to be seen what, if any, accomplishments these organizations have accumulated over the years except to harass the NRA whenever they need extra funds.

[ We're having similar trouble out here in CA with the California Rifle & Pistol Association ("CRPA"). It's cause the CA NRA a lot of problems and has actually given the perception of a split in gunrights support in CA to legislators, and fencesitting legislators think they're safe voting for an antigun bill because of a split btwn CRPA and NRA. One of the CRPA lobbyists fancies himself a real politico, and ends up bargaining away frou-frou intentionlly included in proposed legislation to be, yep, bargained away. CRPA, with cooperation from a politically naive SASS, also helped get the CA 'safe handgun' Roster passed; since it has some dealier ties, it didn't oppose a mailorder ammo ban bill!]



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
I do not know what the letter said, but the bill was introduced and yet has no cosponsors.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990 AND AMENDMENTS TO THAT ACT.

(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (q).

(b) Related Amendments-

(1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking paragraphs (25) through (27) and redesignating paragraphs (28), (29), and (32) through (35) as paragraphs (25) through (30), respectively.

(2) Section 924(a) of such title is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking `(k), or (q)' and inserting `or (k)'; and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively.

(3) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 921 note, 922 note; section 1702 of Public Law 101-647; 104 Stat. 4844-4845) is repealed.
Click to expand...

He has introduced several strong Pro 2nd amendment bills, but none of the other "pro 2nd congressmen" has cosponsored.
 
CRPA, with cooperation from a politically naive SASS, also helped get the CA 'safe handgun' Roster passed; since it has some dealier ties, it didn't oppose a mailorder ammo ban bill!]
Click to expand...
I don't have my past issues of The Firing Line handy, but I thought that CRPA was takeing a neutral or positive position on the AB against mail order ammo sales only if a pre-sent copy of a DL and adult signature required shipping qualified as positive ID, and had it on an otherwise oppose basis.
 
I don't have the letter so I can not tell what it says or doesn't say.
My comment was on the Bill.
If they are misrepresenting the facts they need to be corrected. If they are saying it has passed, that is wrong.
If they are saying "this is what it would do if it passed" that is another thing.
As I stated
I do not know what the letter said
Click to expand...
 
Yeah the GOA has been really disappointing lately. It seems like the dedication of the members goes a lot farther than the management's efforts.

It seems that their activism extends to updating their website and sending out fund raising letters. Unfortunately, I think they are losing their grip on reality (or they bought another yacht)- the threats are getting more and more dubious and the measures they support are getting further and further from anything that has a chance of passing.

Yeah, yeah political realism makes the NRA a bunch of quislings, but at least the NRA is moving steadily forward instead of burning a lot of cash to go nowhere fast.

Looking at the big picture:
Legal: NRA has defense fund, other groups like SAF and Cato have lawyers doing 2nd amendment cases big and small. Does GOA even fund any lawsuits? I'm guessing no.
Legislative: NRA has ILA and PVF. What does GOA actually do during election season? Ever seen them run an political ad or put up a billboard? What is their tax status?
What do they contribute to getting laws passed? It seems that besides cheering on Ron Paul's bills, they don't really support any legislation.
Cultural: The NRA sponsors thousands of shooting competitions, shooting education and eddie eagle type stuff for kids. Does the GOA support any shooting sports? Do they help with education of adults or children? I'm guessing no.

Overall, I'm left with the impression that the GOA's total effort consists of something I could do in about 5 hours a week, probably while drunk. So where does the membership money go?
 
come on, lawbot...

i'm not going to attempt to account for all of GOA's dollars, but they do support and oppose tons of legislation. I get several letters / month from them with postcards to send to state / fed legislatures.

I'm guessing that the % of GOA members who ACTUALLY CONTACT their reps is much higher than the NRA's and so I don't dismiss out of hand the GOA's effect just because they're smaller.

Nobody's claiming the GOA's perfect, so there's no reason to go bashing them unless you want to start another of the ENDLESS "NRA sucks" threads.
 
Yup, nobody's perfect. And, anyway, the most anyone faces is felony charges that would result in prison time, loss of voting rights, and the inability to own or even touch a firearm for the rest of one's life. No need for anyone to get bent out of shape over a little mistake about some law.

I've just checked the status of H. 3964 (the bill you folks are talking about) on South Carolina's General Assembly web site. According to that site at http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3964.htm debate was interrupted and the bill was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee on June 6, 2007, where it is currently "residing."

I think that means the bill in question has not even left the South Carolina House, much less passed the state's Senate or awaiting the governor's signature before becoming law.

So I don't think it would be a good idea to act on a belief that SC has changed its law unless you're interested in spending quality time in a Southern state's prison system.

As for contacting legislators and saying that they ought to follow South Carolina's lead in modifying its stance on this issue, I wonder if that's what anyone should really want to do if the goal is to help gun owners in America. I also wonder if it does any good even if lots of people--really great numbers of them--were to do it.
 
GOA has some very good grass roots support, despite their rather weak resume of legal/lobbying work. It is all part of the process, we all want as much GOA letters, etc as possible. It never hurts. Cato (they are a brilliant bunch over at cato) , NRA and SAF take care of the lobbying, and GOA takes care of alot of the grass roots stuff.

My issue with GOA is they have a trend of using scare-tactics. This bit here makes me think they are ill-informed also.
 
Ah the rifts in the gun owner community. Maybe this is a good sign. We are expanding gun ownership beyond the bounds of the image of the ultra conservative nut job.
 
Ah the rifts in the gun owner community. Maybe this is a good sign. We are expanding gun ownership beyond the bounds of the image of the ultra conservative nut job.
Click to expand...
That is very true. We are now gaining support with the left-wing loons:neener:

Honestly, though, that is a great thing if it is really happening.
 
GOA response

From Robert Duggar
Thank you for the note.

I will forward this to the Staff right away.

I appreciate the information

Thanks again
Click to expand...

Hopefully it gets cleared up. At least they responded promptly. letter was timed as being sent before noon today.
 
That is very true. We are now gaining support with the left-wing loons
Click to expand...

You will say differently if you pay attention to the amendments lined up for the McCarthy bill. In any case, your statement is silly and starkly opposite the truth. A few Democrats is not support from "left-wing loons".
 
To make matters worse, SC just "shot down" the bill. It won't be passing this year.
Click to expand...

Good. Then they have another chance to get it right. It wasn't what was originally proposed.
 
That is very true. We are now gaining support with the left-wing loons
Click to expand...
You will say differently if you pay attention to the amendments lined up for the McCarthy bill. In any case, your statement is silly and starkly opposite the truth. A few Democrats is not support from "left-wing loons".
Click to expand...

Realgun, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was being sarcastic there, a joke in response to the post above. I guess that smiley there after the sentence didn't give enough of a clue?
 
I guess that smiley there after the sentence didn't give enough of a clue?
Click to expand...

Actually, you used a <neener> emoticon. That was :neener: versus :)

To convey sarcasm, use :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top