The Hawaii Firearms Coalition has been a big help in Young (I contacted many groups including the NRA they all told me to pound sand) and obviously andrew is my client in both Roberts cases.

So there is more and more infringements to the 2A than positive laws.  Can anyone post a list of what infringing laws the NRA/NRA-ILA helped with?

1) NJ Mag ban upheld-Did they help
2) Colorado, Hawaii, MA, etc...bump stocks all illegal-They didn't help Hawaii
3) ATF working on bump stock ban-NRA did advise Trump (Reciprocity attached?  Yeah right)
4) Colorado mag bans upheld
5) Colorado soon to require registration of "assault rifles"
6) Clinton era assault weapons ban
7) Regan era machine gun ban
California "featureless" law-Didn't help at all
9) RAPBACK
10) Young vs. Hawaii-Did any gun org help at all or was reached out to (Zipps did mention something, but I forgot)
11) Roberts Vs. Hawaii- Same as above

I'm asking because maybe the NRA is just attracting members due to their name and prior history?  So would other gun orgs be a better option to give money to?  Or of them all, is the NRA still helping the most?

I do understand the no company can fight every infringing law, but seems like there are way to many to even count anymore (See CA as example).

You have to go back in history on how the NRA was formed.  Military officers started the NRA to help the military with marksmanship. 

Yes. It was created by former Union/Yankee civil war officers who had been appalled at the lack of knowledge of firearms, skill, and marksmanship of Yankee rank and file infantry.

Then they supported training, law enforcement, hunting, and competition.  They werent the gun rights organization you know today. 

It doesn't matter what their intended purpose, or stated purpose, or actual purpose was, all that matters is what they actually did. And what they did, via the testimony and influence of their executives and staff, was help create a lot of restrictions on the rights of law-abiding Americans.

They supported banning carrying guns in public in California which makes it odd that they are fighting to legalize it now.

I see what you did there. Yeah, they helped write California's Mulford Act after the Black Panthers lawfully openly carried weapons at the state capitol building. If one reads Heller (authored by Scalia) and McDonald (authored by Alito, but really just a "What he said" to Scalia) it's quite clear that the SCOTUS ruling(s) allow for the strict regulation, to the point of a total ban, on concealed carry, and that the "right" to bear arms for individual self-defense is to openly bear them. I mean, it's in black and white in multiple locations. It's the basis of the Ninth Circuit's Peruta en banc decision that "there is no right to carry concealed weapons in public". NO RIGHT TO BEAR CONCEALED. All the other circuit courts that have ruled that the "restrictions" in place in those jurisdictions that severely limit who may get a license/permit to carry concealed are lawful restrictions, and SCOTUS has refused to grant cert to even one single one of those cases. Some of those cases were financed, at least in part, by the NRA, including Peruta. In Peruta, and to this very day, the NRA argues that a state can ban EITHER concealed or open carry, but NOT BOTH... in very clear contradiction to the Heller decision. (To be fair, Alan Gura, representing the Second Amendment Foundation legal arm, argued the same thing.) (HINT: one is NOT a right, and one IS a right. Take a wild guess at which can be banned. And which can't. Now, why are you arguing that a state can ban one or the other? ) This isn't helping folks. Unless you believe in the "winning by losing" strategy, in which case they have a 100% success rate. [I acknowledge that SCOTUS could take a concealed carry case tomorrow and overturn the rulings in Heller and McDonald that open carry is the right, and concealed is not. But thus far they haven't.]

The NRA has changed and we are better off now overall in protecting gun rights and maintaining a large gun owning population.

See above paragraph. And, note that the NRA tried to derail Heller (argued by Alan Gura, with help from Scalia) because they feared it would lose, and because they weren't in charge and wouldn't get any of the glory if it won. (Okay, the second clause in that sentence is pure speculation, but not the first.) But I agree that they have done some good... it's the bad I have a serious problem with (like giving politicians high scores and supporting their campaigns financially and then having those politicians screw us over once elected, etc. Note also that the NRA has refused to be of any assistance in the issues listed by the OP.

Its not the NRAs job to defend 2nd Amendment rights in Hawaii.  Instead they support our actions here.  Its the job of the people that live here.  Its our community and our responsibility to take care of ourselves and eachother.  That is why I formed the Hawaii Firearms Coalition.

Yes. And thank you for the amazing amount of work you are doing, which is beyond commendable. But... what you wrote about responsibility is true for everyone everywhere, and still, the NRA picks and chooses which issues, cases, and candidates they will support with financial and legal aid. I believe it is fair and necessary to hold them to account for their choices, including questioning their strategies, priorities, and sell outs (see: bump stocks, open carry, NFA 1934, GCA 1968, gun free school zones, etc. etc. etc.).

The NRA actually supported the first three of those things