If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
How is recovering 2m in legal fees an argument though? Any org bringing/funding that case should have had the same result.
That was tried multiple times, very recently even. Wayne is still in charge and nothing has changed. So people are bailing. It happens. There are new and better organizations that actually stand for gun owners.The NRA’s Influence May Be Shrinking
152 years into its existence as a defender of Second Amendment Rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) isn’t as formidablethedeepdive.ca
Perhaps, instead of killing the NRA, we should clean the swamp out of it, and make it stronger.
Taught many people about shooting long before any other organization was around.
Let's adhere to your initial statement. The NRA recovered nearly $2 million in legal fees following the McDonald and Bruen decisions, both considered landmark rulings. In lawsuits, complete reimbursement of expenses is rare. The question arises: where did the organization's funds yield the most significant benefit—investing in these pivotal decisions or directing resources towards a bump stock case, an issue being pursued by other pro-gun coalitions? It's difficult to determine what any pro-gun organization spends on any given case, so the total figures are difficult to ascertain concerning the actual expense for other cases the NRA was involved in. If you don't believe these two cases were advantageous, then there's nothing more to discuss.
I want to emphasize that I am not endorsing or defending Lapierre in any way. My response is solely directed at addressing your misguided initial statement/question and Kalash's unhelpful remarks.
They've never taught me anything.
In McDonald, it was SAF case, NRA v Chicago was a different case that was combined by the courts. NRA road SAF coattails on that
Make a point without putting words in my mouth. Reply to what I said.Ergo, the NRA is bad. Because they never taught you anything personally.
That's kinda like an Israeli who has not been attacked by Hamas saying that Hamas is good.
This whole thread is a small testament to why we are losing the fight.
Sadly you are correct. Wilful ignorance over rabid agendas is an immovable force.Ergo, the NRA is bad. Because they never taught you anything personally.
That's kinda like an Israeli who has not been attacked by Hamas saying that Hamas is good.
This whole thread is a small testament to why we are losing the fight.
It's not an argument. A simple question was asked, i.e., what has the NRA done for us? The simple answer is that they were involved in two landmark decisions in OUR favor. I'm confident that it played a role in additional decisions too.
History is fact, opinions are BS!
It's the results that count. Without the NRA's participation, we would never know if either case was to our advantage without their help. Discussion over.
Sadly you are correct. Wilful ignorance over rabid agendas is an immovable force.
MRNA great again?The NRA’s Influence May Be Shrinking
152 years into its existence as a defender of Second Amendment Rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) isn’t as formidablethedeepdive.ca
Perhaps, instead of killing the NRA, we should clean the swamp out of it, and make it stronger.
I'm not sure that's a strong an argument as you think it is. You are absolutely correct that we will never know what would have happened without the NRA funding. But that knife cuts both ways. It is just as valid to say the cases would have been won without the NRA, because, as you said, we would never know.It's the results that count. Without the NRA's participation, we would never know if either case was to our advantage without their help. Discussion over.
A better question is the utility of the organization now, where they're showing over $40,000,000 annually in legal expenses, exceeding the entire organization's payroll. Where are they dumping all that cash, because it sure isn't in 2A cases?
Really? You think they spent $40,000,000 last year on that? Seems unlikely, considering that they're mentioned nowhere in the decision, unlike the FPC who are at least listed as an amici.NRA-ILA | Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License Requirement in NRA-Backed Case.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals ruled that Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License (“HQL”) requirement is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.www.nraila.org
Really? You think they spent $40,000,000 last year on that? Seems unlikely, considering that they're mentioned nowhere in the decision, unlike the FPC who are at least listed as an amici.
Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Wes Moore, No. 21-2017 (4th Cir. 2023)
Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the state from enforcing only this additional, preliminary handgun-licensure requirement. The district court originally dismissed that challenge for lack of Article III standing, but we reversed and remanded for a decision on the merits. On remand, the district court...law.justia.com
Or can't be bothered......That is just one of many places the NRA spends it's money. Places where many people won't bother to look for.
Or can't be bothered......
Many places. Many, many places! Soooooo many places that their proponents can't even list them to support their arguments!That is just one of many places the NRA spends it's money. Places where many people won't bother to look for.
Is Barnaby Jones not a thing anymore?And just when they are settling down with their pudding to watch Matlock reruns.
Many places. Many, many places! Soooooo many places that their proponents can't even list them to support their arguments!
Many places. Many, many places! Soooooo many places that their proponents can't even list them to support their arguments!
Again, $40,000,000/year for legal fees. Just legal fees. Enough to keep 80 lawyers busy full time if they're all getting $500,000 each. And naïve people keep rolling out the same few cases (none of which ever seem to list the NRA as a party or amici in the decision) as though it's an irrefutable argument to keep pouring money down the hole.
But beyond that, the NRA spends less than $7,000,000/year on the ILA. The $40,000,000 is outside of ILA activities. So what takes 6 times the legal effort beyond the ILA?
So, you're complaining that I'm not spending time looking for material to support your arguments when you're not willing to?They are there for you to find also.
That is, if you would bother to look.
Hey, another example of the NRA ratholing money. "With great legal and financial assistance from the National Rifle Association (NRA), we [lost]" is not a winning sales pitch.I guess that you didn't get the memo on this. Please read the second paragraph.
GOAL - MA Assault Weapon Court Action
www.goal.org
How?The NRA’s Influence May Be Shrinking
152 years into its existence as a defender of Second Amendment Rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) isn’t as formidablethedeepdive.ca
Perhaps, instead of killing the NRA, we should clean the swamp out of it, and make it stronger.
Looking at the NRA using their 2022 form 990, it appears to be about 3% ($7 million out of $211 million).Are the NRA’s overhead costs greater than the overhead costs of the other 2A orgs fighting the battles in court? How much of a dollar given to the NRA makes its way to the courtroom vs a dollar given to the FPC?
Please, tell us; what have the Republicans done when they controlled everything?You disregard the importance NRA had on lobbying. I don't think the NRA weakening and the republicans losing election after election since is exclusive