Great article re some of the compromising tactics of the NRA and the less or no compromise tactics of state level rights organizations. I hope the new HIFICO will be far less timid in seeking to restore our rights. I think we can all see clearly where any strategy of "compromise" has gotten us. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON IN THE ENTIRE STATE MAY BEAR ARMS OUTSIDE THEIR HOME FOR SELF-DEFENSE!  The only such state in the entire Untied States! Are we supposed to thank someone and donate money to them for accomplishing that? Gee, thanks a lot. And the list of hardware "bans" is up near the top of the list of any state. Even in crazy California and New Jersey and Maryland you can own a stun gun for christ's sake. I've copied some excerpts below and highlighted some of it for extra emphasis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-states/local-gun-groups-flex-muscle-in-state-politics-sidestepping-the-nra-idUSKCN1MI12G?utm_source=reddit.com

Local gun groups flex muscle in state politics, sidestepping the NRA

The gun lobby fought hard to pass the bill. The group some lawmakers credited with providing crucial momentum was not so much the National Rifle Association, the powerful national lobbying organization, but rather the Missouri Firearms Coalition, an aggressive grassroots operation founded in 2015.

These groups have become increasingly active in promoting a pro-gun agenda in many states, unafraid of alienating lawmakers who waver on gun rights. In many cases, they say they would rather lose a legislative fight on principle than compromise and support a watered-down bill.

At times, this can put local groups at odds with the NRA, which some see as too willing to give ground on the most aggressive pro-gun laws in state legislatures, said Greg Pruett, president of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, which formed in 2012.

“It’s always kind of interesting when you see a lot of people in the gun control community talk about how radical the NRA is,” said Pruett, whose group organized an email and telephone campaign to pass a 2016 Idaho law allowing people to carry concealed handguns without a permit, also known as “constitutional carry.”

“There’s an entire movement on the other side of the NRA … We’re done compromising,” he said.

The most uncompromising among them say the NRA has become too timid and too willing to back measures such as removing firearms from people deemed dangerous.

“I call it pre-emptive concession,” said Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, which has helped expand concealed carry rights and a “stand your ground” law.

[Here's part of Herschel Walker's commentary on the article at his blog http://www.captainsjournal.com/2018/10/09/the-national-rifle-association-has-marginalized-themselves/ :

The NRA has harmed not only gun rights in America (with its support for the GCA, the NFA, the connection of mental health to crime, and the bump stock ban), but they have marginalized themselves in the process, becoming nothing more than a money grabbing organization.  It’s a shame, really, as it could have been different.]

* * * * *
The NRA has taken in approximately one half BILLION dollars since the 2016 election, and thus far this year they have spent less than six million in support of and against candidates in the 2018 midterms. Bloomberg has committed over 100 million and Steyer over 115 million to elect gun control candidates.

Follow the NRA’s Spending on the 2018 Midterms, Down to the Last Dollar

https://www.thetrace.org/features/nra-campaign-finance-tracker/

I have been looking at some of the other gun rights organizations as they seem to have gotten kind of extreme. I heard an interview with a guy who was the founder of the "independent firearm owners" association recently that intrigued me however I cannot find much about the organization. Apparently it is new and they don't have much in terms of an online presence. The founder seemed to present the organization as a group that was pro gun but didn't take all the hard lines the NRA took.

There definitely seems to be a number of alternative groups people can join now, both local and national.

It is long past time to drive a stake through the black heart of the NRA.

51 years ago the NRA helped write and endorsed the passage of California's first Open Carry ban.

Since April of 2010, the NRA has been in Federal court arguing in support of all Open Carry bans, everywhere.  First in Perua v. San Diego then Flanagan v. Harris (now v. Becerra).

Anyone who defends or otherwise makes excuses for the NRA, including its official state organizations such as the CRPA, should not be allowed to even possess a firearm.

It is long past time to drive a stake through the black heart of the NRA.

51 years ago the NRA helped write and endorsed the passage of California's first Open Carry ban.

Since April of 2010, the NRA has been in Federal court arguing in support of all Open Carry bans, everywhere.  First in Perua v. San Diego then Flanagan v. Harris (now v. Becerra).

Anyone who defends or otherwise makes excuses for the NRA, including its official state organizations such as the CRPA, should not be allowed to even possess a firearm.

Anyone who disagrees with your political opinions deserves to have their Constitutionally protected civil rights taken away?

Are you a Liberal?  You sound like a Liberal ... which is essentially a Socialist.

I think a more accurate phrase would be "anyone who supports the NRA should not complain about gun rights being taken away".  But to be honest, I'm a member and so is my wife.  But I'm also a member of the HIFICO.  So it balances out.

Anyone who disagrees with your political opinions deserves to have their Constitutionally protected civil rights taken away?

Are you a Liberal?  You sound like a Liberal ... which is essentially a Socialist.

Anyone who defends an organization, like the NRA, which defends bans on Open Carry, which is the Second Amendment right and always has been, is an enemy of the Second Amendment.

I should have added that stupid people should not be allowed to possess firearms.  For example, people who think that my defending the Second Amendment while their beloved NRA wages war on the Second Amendment somehow makes me a socialist or a liberal.  That qualifies as being too stupid to be allowed anywhere near a weapon.

Wow!

And that’s exactly the stuff that turns off people to getting behind what is otherwise a good cause.

If Joshua Prince is the lawyer they hired for a Young v. Hawaii Amicus then you should be aware that Mr. Prince is of the opinion that Open Carry bans are constitutional.  Mr. Prince is also of the opinion that drug laws are unconstitutional.  Regardless of one's feelings toward Open Carry or drug laws, he is wrong on both counts.

Which makes Mr. Prince a piss-poor choice to write an Amicus brief.  $5 will get you $10 that the HIFICO Amicus brief argues that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.  An argument which constitutes malpractice if made by either of Mr. Young's lawyers but not if made by an Amicus.  http://hifico.org/young-v-hawaii/

Anyone who defends an organization, like the NRA, which defends bans on Open Carry, which is the Second Amendment right and always has been, is an enemy of the Second Amendment.

I should have added that stupid people should not be allowed to possess firearms.  For example, people who think that my defending the Second Amendment while their beloved NRA wages war on the Second Amendment somehow makes me a socialist or a liberal.  That qualifies as being too stupid to be allowed anywhere near a weapon.

Stating that anyone who doesn't think like you doesn't deserve the right to own firearms is "defending the Second Amendment?"

I thought the Second Amendment is a Constitutional protection of a basic human right of all men and women.  I don't think you know what the Second Amendment is all about -- or human rights for that matter.  You seem to have no problem prohibiting rights for people you just don't agree with.

Stating that anyone who doesn't think like you doesn't deserve the right to own firearms is "defending the Second Amendment?"

I thought the Second Amendment is a Constitutional protection of a basic human right of all men and women.  I don't think you know what the Second Amendment is all about -- or human rights for that matter.  You seem to have no problem prohibiting rights for people you just don't agree with.

And so my defending the Second Amendment and the NRA's longstanding war against the Second Amendment makes me someone who has no problem with prohibitions on the Second Amendment right.

For the benefit of those of you "under 30" who are too young to remember the Soviet Union, this is the kind of crap it used to spew everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

Of course, the Soviet spokesmen knew the difference between the truth and a lie, and recognized the logical inconsistencies they were spewing but there were hundreds of millions of folks like Flapp here who either couldn't tell the difference or did not care.

NRA has done a lot to help the Nation when no one else would.  They have maintained the gun owning population through hunting, training and other ways.

I can see how the NRA can bend on things like bumpstocks, machine guns, and even open carry.  NRA is a large and diverse group of members.  Most NRA members are moderates on gun rights or are uneducated on gun rights so will vote that way for their NRA elections and hence their directors and leaders go that way tooand are more open to compromises.  Most people are against open carry.  A lot of people are against carrying a rifle case through Waikiki.  NRA does a lot of good things, especially during the elections.  We would have Hillary Clinton if not for the NRA.

Smaller groups like the SAF, GOA, and local organizations are much smaller and focused on gun rights issues so are able to do what they do.

Its up to people like us to explain to other gun owners the importance of gun rights and why open carry is a fundamental part of America and why it shouldnt be sacrificed.

And so my defending the Second Amendment and the NRA's longstanding war against the Second Amendment makes me someone who has no problem with prohibitions on the Second Amendment right.

For the benefit of those of you "under 30" who are too young to remember the Soviet Union, this is the kind of crap it used to spew everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

Of course, the Soviet spokesmen knew the difference between the truth and a lie, and recognized the logical inconsistencies they were spewing but there were hundreds of millions of folks like Flapp here who either couldn't tell the difference or did not care.

Funny how you know nothing about me, yet that doesn't stop you from spewing juvenile attacks.  Soviet Union?  LOL!!!!

You aren't defending anything.  You're bashing the NRA and trying to equate your hate with what you characterize as a "war against the Second Amendment".  Because you say so.

That's your opinion.  But you went a huge step beyond and bashed anyone who disagrees with your opinion as undeserving of the right to own firearms.

I don't care who you think you are, but that is also your opinion.  And that opinion tells us all we need to know about you. 

You seem to think insults are equivalent to rational arguments.  Another Liberal/Socialist trait.