escapedNJ wrote:. . . Now the Board member that is from NJ has done great things for NJ (Scott Bach) with his ANJRPC (Which I am a member of as well), . . .
Scott is a good friend and I am assigned a number of his funding requests for review and recommendation. You might want to ask Scott if he and ANJRPC get a lot of funding and help from the NRA and NRA-CRDF.
I don't object to you supporting any candidate, but I have a strong objection to absurd allegations that the NRA doesn't do anything for NJ. Had you not made such unfounded statements, I wouldn't have posted on this thread.
escapedNJ wrote:. . . but a lot of the things that get done in front of the paying NRA members isn't seen. The NRA could do a better job at notifying it's members of what it's doing and organize more things.
Sometimes we cannot openly disclose things we're doing because it would tip off the opposition and give them more time to organize against our efforts. Sometimes there simply isn't a way to get this information out to only our Members. As for "organ[izing] more things," I'm not sure how we could do more in NJ without sacrificing other states. Remember, the NRA must focus resources on federal legislation as well as states. We don't devote a fraction of our resources to Texas that we do in other states because we don't need it. There's only so much we can devote to the states in terms of money and personnel. Would you have us withdraw some or all of our support in California and/or Illinois to increase our efforts to NJ? Those states are at least as bad off as NJ and in some respects they are much worse. I suspect our Members in California and Illinois would object.
escapedNJ wrote:As for Texas not turning out like California.... Guess what the liberals are working on it for 2016. So sitting here thinking it can't happen is not best way to handle the situation.
I said nothing about sitting around feeling secure. I'm been legislatively active for over 34 years and I've been doing everything possible to build a strong and responsive firearms community to pass pro-gun bills and kill anti-gun bills. My point is arguing that what happens in NJ will determine Texas' future is bogus and nothing more than an attempt to get Texans to focus on NJ's problems brought on by NJ voters.
escapedNJ wrote:I am all for finding the occasional new blood that will push the organization.
Almost every Board election sees new people elected to the Board. These people are almost always people who have a long history of Second Amendment advocacy and most have an excellent track record doing so. When I was first elected to the NRA Board in 2001, I had been legislatively active for 20 years writing some or all of numerous pro-gun bills and working against anti-gun bills. My experience is similar to most Board Members.
We occasionally hear people call for non-specific change on the NRA Board. Well, a majority of Americans bought into the general call for "Change" in 2008 and we got 8 years of the worst excuse for a President the Country has ever seen. I have served on the NRA Nominating Committee twice. (You can only serve once every 5 years and not when you are up for reelection. The Committee has both Board Members and non-Board Members.) We reviewed every single exiting Board Member's service as well as the submitted information/credentials of every person nominated for inclusion on the ballot by NRA Members. We spent hours doing this and the job is taken very seriously. My personal opinion is that sitting Board Members who are doing a good job should not be passed over for nomination simply to get "new blood." That said, the Nominating invariably nominates people who are not sitting Board Members, almost always resulting in more people on the ballot than the 25 open seats. So the often repeated claim that the Committee merely protects the incumbents is yet another lie proffered by the old Knox crowd.
Members also need to realize that new Board Members are like rookies in any profession or activity. It takes time to learn the NRA and become a productive Board Member. Even with my extensive experience when I was elected, I used the first year of my term to learn the ropes and didn't try to inject myself into operations being handled by far more experienced Board Members. In my opinion, in view of the NRA's continuing successes, one should not call for a change in the Board's direction. If the NRA ever becomes ineffective, only then do I believe it is reasonable to call for a change.
escapedNJ wrote:I think it's fair for people to listen and decide for themselves.. For those of us that are voting members I think it's in our best interest to vote with knowledge versus voting for the incumbent or the celebrity that everyone knows.
Of course people should make their own decisions as to how they should vote, but they should not be subjected to false allegations about the NRA or sitting Board Members. Claiming that the NRA doesn't do much for NJ and/or that your candidate will take care of NJ are just such allegations.
The undeniable fact is the NRA is incredibly effective at the federal level in the most hostile environment we've seen in decades. In spite of a rabidly anti-gun President, the Sandy Hook tragedy and hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into the anti-gun campaign, no anti-gun laws have been passed. In the vast majority of states, Second Amendment rights are being expanded. Yes, things are bad in California, Illinois and New Jersey, but until and unless the electorate in those states decide to quit electing anti-gun candidates, there is only so much the NRA can do.
Promote whomever you wish for the NRA Board, but don't expect me to stay quiet if you or your candidate do so by making unfounded accusations against the NRA, its Board, or its leadership.
Chas.
