Assault Weapon's Ban lawsuit.

[Toast]

To be fair, GOAL works via legislation, not litigation. Him saying these things doesn’t really matter as far as GOAL goes since it doesn’t affect what they do. It does do some damage to Comm2A though, why would people want to donate to them if they know any lawsuits brought forth are most likely going to lose?

That was kind of where I was leaning, though. His comment does nothing to move the ball forward, and it can inflict damage on the overall cause.

If you're the head of an advocacy group, your public statements as head of that group should solely focus on achieving your goals (pun intended), not on getting a mention in the news. He could have said something in the vein of supporting the aim of the lawsuit, something anodyne about wishing the plaintiffs success, or he could have just STFU. If you can't say something helpful, don't say nuttin' !

 

[Joeldiaz]

That was kind of where I was leaning, though. His comment does nothing to move the ball forward, and it can inflict damage on the overall cause.

If you're the head of an advocacy group, your public statements as head of that group should solely focus on achieving your goals (pun intended), not on getting a mention in the news. He could have said something in the vein of supporting the aim of the lawsuit, something anodyne about wishing the plaintiffs success, or he could have just STFU. If you can't say something helpful, don't say nuttin' !

Agreed on all points. Part of the reason he said this I think is because GOAL (or at least Jim) doesn’t support NAGR. They don’t like that NAGR didn’t reach out to them first before filing the lawsuit, GOAL apparently had “very specific reasons” for not suing yet (TLDR: plenty of AWB & mag ban cases already, one is bound to hit SCOTUS at some point). They also don’t agree with the concept of being a “no compromise” organization in deep blue MA, as they believe it does more harm than good here.