Correcto. It is about rights and liberties aka 2nd Amendment. It is about home protection with eight shotgun shells in a semi-auto Benelli. Oh, 18.5" barrel and it ain't for hunting.
Posted on 09/07/2007 11:24:04 AM PDT by looscnnn
What are we supposed to do, pour lead in the sixth chamber?
Correcto. It is about rights and liberties aka 2nd Amendment. It is about home protection with eight shotgun shells in a semi-auto Benelli. Oh, 18.5" barrel and it ain't for hunting.
... or the NRA is done...
The NRA is much like the Soviet Union: The "nominating Committee" picks who can be a candidate, then the members can 'vote' for them. A closed circuit.
A former Texas Ranger wants to outlaw a six-shooter. Talk about irony!
It's not that simple. He's not an employee of the NRA, he's a member of the board of directors, or was when the video was made. Now I'm sure there are provisions for removing a director, but it would have to be the other board members, not the management, such as Wayne LaPierre, who *are* employees of the NRA.
But it's still not quite even that simple. The Management pretty much packs the board, by selection of the "Winning Team" and major advertising campaigns in the NRA pubs for that slate and sometimes against other "non blessed" candidates. Although a few "rebels" do manage to get onto the board as well, such as Neal Knox, back in the day when he was still around. (Neal was formerly head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, the Lobbying "branch" of the NRA and a former Vice President. )
BTW, the interview with Jackson took place on June 5, 2005, so it's not exactly breaking news. But here's a Recent update (2007 August 31) From Neal's son Jeff at the Firearms Coalition. The link provides Jackson's "retraction". But my read is that Jackson is an old and somewhat easily confused/lead astray old man. I'm inclined to cut him a break, given his illustrious history as a Texas Ranger, and even cut the NRA a little break for "encouraging" and probably ghost writing his retraction.
Better get used to your disappointment. The original interview was in June of 2005, and Joaquin is still on the NRA board, but as I said above, it isn't a simple matter of firing him, he's a member of the board, not an employee.
He's not a functionary, Wayne LaPierre is a functionary, (but not a minor one), this guy is on the board of directors.
“He’s not a functionary, Wayne LaPierre is a functionary, (but not a minor one), this guy is on the board of directors”
Correct. The board of directors is chosen every year from a slate presented by the NRA leadership staff. Others can be nominated. This slate is vote on by the membership. The boardmembers are not minor, either. Ted Nugent is on that board.
The voting members of the NRA ( All fully paid Lifetime members and Annual members with five or more consecutive years of membership, who have attained the age of 18 years and who are citizens of the United States of America) or at least enough of them.
That’s just great. So when does his term expire, and why isn’t there a mechanism for kicking him off?
What about a magazine fed .50 caliber Sniper rifle? This one has a magazine capacity of 5 rounds and has an MSRP of "only" $6,000.
OTOH, this one's magazine holds 10, but it's MSRP is $8,050.
There no such "bastards" in the gun rights community, not even in the NRA. The amendment that banned machine guns (yea I know only new ones) was a last minute (pretty much literally) amendment that very few even knew of before it was passed. From Gunlaw News:
The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986.
More details of the passage of the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986 are given in "THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE" by David T. Hardy
But Joaquin Jackson is not "skeet geek Fudd" he's a retired Texas Ranger of no small repute. But he is old, and many NRA boards members are there to "look good", not to make policy. He's probably one of those.
True, but the JPFO, GOA, and all the other relatively small wannabe pro-gun orgs want very much to get in on the NRA's large membership rolls and it's money raising schemes. They continually pick away at every blunder made by the NRA in hopes of luring away some of the 5 million NRA members along with their credit cards and checkbooks. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that as long as the truth is held to be the final arbiter of who's right and who's wrong.
Lord knows the NRA has committed more than it's share of accidental goofs and deliberate mistakes in judgment, but to condemn and abandon the entire 5 million member org over the moronic opinion of one man who will no doubt be put off the NRA board in short order is equivalent to shooting ourselves in the foot because a toe itches. In spite of it's many annoying warts and a few running open sores like the moronic board member in this instance, the NRA is still far and away the most effective, experienced, and professionally run pro-gun rights organization in the US.
When GOA or JPFO speaks not many legislators listen, but when NRA speaks many lawmakers at both state and federal levels who would really, really like to deny us our 2nd A rights just grind their teeth in angst and then reluctantly decline to join the American left's push for an aggressive anti-gun agenda. I think it's a good idea to support and belong to as many of the pro-gun rights orgs as you can afford, but if someone can only afford to belong to one, IMHO the NRA still gives the most effective representation for the money.
The NRA doesn't usually endorse anyone in the Primaries. Given the likely DemonRat nominee, they are quite likely to endorse whichever candidate, Conservative or RINO, that is nominated by the Republicans. Although they didn't endorse G HW Bush in his re-election bid, and we ended up with Slick Willy and the Assault Weapons ban.
The NRA, like other organizations has bylaws, which in effect are their version of a Constitution. They specify the methods of nomination and election of board members. IMHO they should be changed, right now the unelected managers have too much power, but until they are, they must be followed. Same as the Constitution.
If you had as many members, with as high a fraction of voters, as the NRA does, lots of CongressCritters would be beating down your door to get your endorsement. Whores that they are.
I don’t pretend to know the NRA bylaws, but I am sure that there are provisions for removing someone for the good of the order. I know that my local gun rights group has made such provision. I cannot imagine that the NRA doesn’t also.
And congress has provisions for removing their members and the president when they violate their office.
I don’t see this as any different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.