Would you join a gun club that required NRA membership?

[HoosierQ]

Yes I would. Gun clubs avail themselves to a great number of services of the NRA and I think it appropriate to ask that members be NRA members.

 

[Kristensdaddy]

Our club implemented the NRA membership policy in 2011 through a voted change of the bylaws.

Not sure I understand you folks who say no, I wouldn't join because no one is going to tell me what to do with my "club." Well, at my club the rules are that you will not shoot NFA guns, you will not shoot before daylight, you will not shoot trash on the ranges and you will be a member of the NRA. It is called membership rules, you don't like the rules, shoot somewhere else.

 

[Coop45]

No club, NRA life member. Would I join one, sure.

 

[303tom]

NO.............

 

[gym]

I am an NRA member, but hate being told I "have" to do anything, by anyone. Unless I am in the military or a LEO, I should have the right to choose if I want to be forced to join an organization in order to be part of another.It's not like either are free, in this economy, many people can't afford to pay essential bills, now they can't shoot because they don't have an extra $35.00 that month. No way

 

[PT92]

No one is forcing it upon anyone--if you don't like, don't join the Club (debatably still a free country). If you have money to shoot, you have $35 (or less if you find the need) to join the NRA.

-Cheers

 

[thelaststand]

Gym, I think the membership is 35 per year

 

[PT92]

Gym, I think the membership is 35 per year

It is regularly--Here (just one example) you can join for $25 which is <$35:

http://www.shootingusa.com/LATEST_UPDATES/NRA_news/NRA_Membership/nra_membership.html

 

[cowart]

<< Clubs are going to grandfather existing members regardless of their membership in other organizations >>

The original post said "Existing members will not be grandfathered"

 

[nosmr2]

I joined because the my range required it. I just think of it as $30 more bucks tacked on top of the annual membership. I belong to a great range and would probably join Greenpeace or PETA if required.

 

[M-Cameron]

1. If you were an existing club member who's not in the NRA (for whatever reason), would you join the NRA in order to remain a member of the gun club?

if i was already an established member for a significant length of time.....and they all of a sudden told me i HAD to join the NRA( or any other organization for that matter)....ide leave. i dont like having extra requirements i didnt agree to forced upon me, regardless of the reason.

2. If you were a non club member and non-NRA member who wanted to join the club, would you join the NRA to gain club membership?

if i wanted to join the club, then yeah, ide probably have no problem joining to become a member in that case.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I am an NRA member, but hate being told I "have" to do anything, by anyone. Unless I am in the military or a LEO, I should have the right to choose if I want to be forced to join an organization in order to be part of another.

You don't have to do anything, including being a member of a gun club whose membership requirements you don't like. If the club decides you need to be at least 18 years of age, not prohibited from possessing firearms, show evidence of gun safety training or pay a membership fee, are they telling you what you "have to do"?

It's not like either are free, in this economy, many people can't afford to pay essential bills, now they can't shoot because they don't have an extra $35.00 that month. No way

The benefits the club gets from NRA affiliation aren't free either, those they can obtain with NRA affiliation; others aren't available at all.

If you don't like it, find another club which meets your needs. If you can't find one, feel free to found one. Then deal with the guys who don't like to be told what they have to do.

 

[jcwit]

I belong to a great range and would probably join Greenpeace or PETA if required.

LOL, Well there are times where the line has to be drawn in the sand, so to speak.

 

[valnar]

I'm an NRA member and several clubs near me require NRA membership. I actually respect them more because of that, since the NRA is the big gorilla fighting for our gun rights on D.C. The fact we even need an organization like the NRA to fight for our 2nd ammendment rights perterbs me, but that is another discussion.

I suppose the better question is, why does belonging to the NRA offend those who would not join a club that mandates it? I would assume it's political, but not sure.

 

[phil dirt]

1. yes
2. yes
I have been an NRA member since 1967. I have nothing but contempt for those who value their gun rights but steadfastly bad mouth the NRA. Without the NRA, and to a lessor extent the other gun rights groups, I think we would have lost our gun rights a long time ago.

 

[Ryanxia]

If it hasn't already been stated the NRA insurance for gun ranges is pretty good from what I hear. That insurance though requires the 100% membership, that's the case at my range anyways.

 

[Ford Prefect]

That club is clearly not for me.

I have checked the NRA website for support for the words "arms" or "Militia" on thier site. Not there. Never has been. They think it means skeet shooting or duck hunting. It does not.
When the NRA supports my 2nd Amendment rights I'll join. They haven't yet. So far they've only worked agaist me, but still claim credit for every victory we have gained. Even when they fought those victories, including Heller v. D.C..

NRA is just to protect the sports of rich men. They have, and will keep, selling out the 2nd Amdendment for the sole benifit of rich "sportsment".

When I can find where they support the Militia of the 2nd Amendment, then I'll join. I don't care if they ban skeet shooting for rich people. The 2nd does not protect "sports". Only "ARMS" for the Militia are protected.

Maybe after they loose thier target/duck guns they will finally read the 2nd Amendment and learn to defend Americans right to Arms for Militia purposes. Not "sports".

 

[jcwit]

That club is clearly not for me.


When the NRA supports my 2nd Amendment rights I'll join. They haven't yet. So far they've only worked agaist me, but still claim credit for every victory we have gained. Even when they fought those victories, including Heller v. D.C..

NRA is just to protect the sports of rich men. They have, and will keep, selling out the 2nd Amdendment for the sole benifit of rich "sportsment".

Post proof with links, and not opinion.

 

[Jason_W]

No on both accounts.

I understand why some clubs institute such policies, but I can't bring myself to give money to an organization I don't support (due to their methods, not their alleged cause).

 

[Birch Knoll]

I can't bring myself to give money to an organization I don't support (due to their methods, not their alleged cause)

Here, at least, is a guy who knows the difference between an enemy and a friend with whom you disagree.

 

[Ford Prefect]

I actually respect them more because of that, since the NRA is the big gorilla fighting for our gun rights on D.C.

It's sad that gun owners believe this lie. Not true. NRA fought to prevent Heller v DC from ever getting to court. But when they won, NRA claimed credit for it, and millions sent them money for it. The NRA never once opposed DC's 30 year total ban on weapons in the home. Not once in 30 years.

 

[jcwit]

It's sad that gun owners believe this lie. Not true. NRA fought to prevent Heller v DC from ever getting to court. But when they won, NRA claimed credit for it, and millions sent them money for it. The NRA never once opposed DC's 30 year total ban on weapons in the home. Not once in 30 years.

Where's your proof supporting what you "claim" as a lie?

Just a post of your opinion doesn't cut it.

BTW, these comments need to go to the Activism forum.

 

[valnar]

I'm sure if I tried hard enough, I could find plenty of cases where the NRA legitimately helped our cause. The question to ask is, would we be further along, nationally, if the NRA didn't exist at all? I doubt it.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Post proof with links, and not opinion

Link provided.
No one can prove a negative. I can show where they have fought my rights. Can you show where they have fought FOR my rights (Militia rights, not sports)? Not just claimed credit for it after someone else won.

[edit] National Rifle AssociationAttorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[51] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[52] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[53] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[6]

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said. Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.[6]

Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin: "If Parker is the long-awaited "clean" case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment—including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case—have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[54
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#National_Rifle_Association

 

[Ford Prefect]

I'm sure if I tried hard enough, I could find plenty of cases where the NRA legitimately helped our cause. The question to ask is, would we be further along, nationally, if the NRA didn't exist at all? I doubt it.

I'm sure if you tried very hard you would find INDIVIDUALS who have done lots for us. Some of those have been associated with the NRA. But the national NRA is a scam.
I for one believe we would be better off with out them. Then we would see we need an acutal RIGHTS organization, not a "sportsmens" lobby.

I just checked thier website again. I see the word sportsment all over the place, but I can't find the page on Militia. Can anyone find a link to the NRA's "Militia" or "Arms" section? I don't think it exists.