More Comments on the NRA
and the McDonald case

Share/Bookmark    rss-feed

By Kirby Ferris

Copyright 2010, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

(Read also this relevant Washington Post article,(or archived here on JPFO)
and this as well - Lawyer Fight!) (also archived here on JPFO)

Discontent with the NRA’s involvement in the upcoming, and immensely crucial, Supreme Court case McDonald vs. City of Chicago continues to be directed to JPFO.

Please see “NRA Elbows its Way in” for the article that elicited these responses. Also visit a past article explaining the urgency of the McDonald case  - "Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?"

Here’s some more of the commentary we’ve recently received on the NRA’S behavior in general, and specifically on McDonald.


“It has been brought to my attention that in a large number of instances NRA has provided weak support of the Second Amendment and RKBA issues.

I have reviewed many examples and regretfully must agree.
I just renewed my membership but I will not cancel it yet. I must INSIST that NRA take a stricter role.

Don’t support anti gun laws in tradeoffs for something.

Don’t support anti gun laws for anything.

Stop the negative attitude toward other RKBA
groups that are more assertive.

Stop playing politics with the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment.

"shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed"

Step up to the plate. Time to cowboy up.

Support the "Vermont" model: No CCW permit.

Fewer laws the better. Violence is already illegal. Prosecute violence...not guns, knives, baseball bats, toothbrushes, skillets or golf clubs etc.

Get off your support of the Fed regulations. Stop support of BATFE. Shut it down.

If BATFE were shut down if would suddenly make available $$$$__________ to other law enforcement agencies to get bad guys, protect borders and etc.
Besides, who the xxxx came up with the idea of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives? How about adding Nose Tweezers and Laxatives?

OK NRA … get the idea now?
Get with the program.

Everybody sees through you and your multi $$$$ salaries,
expense accounts, prestige etc.

We would not hold that against you if you took our side and abolish the BATFE and eliminate 19,999 of the 20,000 anti gun laws on the books.

Don’t even try to parse this. Just digest it. Believe us. We mean it. The thing is, it’s not just me...there are a lot of us who feel this way.

Takes me a lot to get wound up, like a lot of Americans. But when we do … you want to be on our side.

I have not attempted to be articulate or academic in this memo. Just straight talk. I don’t have time to fuss around.”

TP (to the NRA)


“I first met Wayne (The NRA Itself) LaPierre at a gun show in about 1998 as he was making the rounds. I button-holed him and asked him why the NRA, which was so activist legislatively, wasn’t ever involved with challenging gun laws judicially. He hemmed and hawed and blathered that their focus was on "changing the laws" and told me that he’d have the NRA’s general counsel get back to me. Interestingly, I did later receive a letter from the then general counsel, advising me that "the NRA supports a variety of approaches to preserving our gun rights." [Yeah, right].

I can tell you that, being an attorney myself, I was pretty aware of what the NRA was actually doing in the field in the way of judicial challenge in those days. Not Jack Squat. Now, legislatively, the organization is stupendous. I really believe that it has given us shall-issue as we know it today. But in no meaningful way has it contributed to judicial challenges (least of all to judicial successes) on the gun rights fronts. Your other e-mailer got it right – the NRA is afraid of the judicial arena. Not unreasonable given the vagaries of judicial interpretations, but NO EXCUSE for not supporting Emerson, and for trying to usurp the credit for Heller, and for trying to compromise and co-opt McDonald!! I think it’s a raw power-grab on NRA’s part. That's what I think.

But hey, I may be wrong. I'm willing to change my position. If Vince Suprynowicz, Chris Knox and Alan Gura tell me I'm wrong, I will humbly change my tune.” KD (attorney)


“Finally someone is calling out the NRA. I've been saying for years that the NRA is the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton of the gun control movement! Thank you Aaron and Kirby for bringing this to the forefront. The NRA is only interested in protecting its big "crystal museum/office building" in Fairfax and the fat paychecks for the executives and perks for the board members. They certainly don't want to end gun control and lose their "control" on the gun rights issue. Thanks for all you do.” LT


“While renewing my CPL I rejoined the NRA, but after reading about how they treated my Second Amendment Sister's [note: see previous alert comments link above] I will not make that mistake again. I'll just use that money to rejoin the JPFO.” GT


“I just read the responses you posted concerning the NRA.
I decided that the NRA didn't want my membership when Charlton Heston as President of the NRA said that he couldn't see any reason for anyone to own an AK47. I was really upset about that and never heard or saw anyone ever mention that statement from such an "esteemed" person. The Brown Bess was an assault rifle too.” DC


“What really is the NRA's opinion on the Second Amendment?

A. Should there be reasonable gun laws? We already have 20,000 reasonable gun laws on the books. Do we need a few more?


B. All gun laws should be repealed? The Second Amendment says that "the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not (mandatory) be infringed.’" ML (to NRA)


“I belonged to a telecom union, CWA, which was supposed to stand for, The Communications Workers Of America. It didn't take me long to realize it actually stood for "The Company Wins Always", and that ANY organization, no matter what the original intent, eventually exists for its own self. Are you now telling me that the NRA fits that category?” JS


“What kind of a brain-fried stunt is this? Do you already work for the opposition in order to "safe" your organization by hiring Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!

To me this looks as though you fear that the NRA may not be needed anymore, after the McDonald case is won (‘so lets make sure we have to be around by loosing this one’).

To me, this is promoting the Goat to the Position of Gardener. And please, spare me the logic of “lets hire
him before our enemy’s do”, because - IT SUCKS, IT STINKS TO THE HEAVENS.

In addition; Looks to me as if you (expletive deleted) try to rest on someone else’s laurels, by “jumping” on the bandwagon at the last minute, after others have done the major work - while NRA was sitting idly by.

And now, worst of all, criticizing Alan Gura’s expertise, the one lawyer who is the most to “blame” that the Heller case was won.

I am deeply troubled and disappointed by the unprofessional attitude of the one organization that I thought was worth supporting, by becoming a life member. But now, I think, this will have an end. No more support, verbal or fiscal, from me.”

Your EX Life-Member, TS (to NRA)


“NRA’s explanation (justification) of Paul Clement’s involvement in Heller, and why they still choose him for the Chicago case, is akin to the post WWII CIA position for keeping key Nazis unpunished, and in key allied positions because, "they were the best at what they do" -- or the Nuremburg Defense: just following orders as a government employee.

After many years of political experience, I carry the considered opinion that Attorney Generals -- and their legal minions -- are close to the most whorish government operatives. They knowingly build careers by enforcing life-destroying, malicious and stupid laws. If Clement had a shred of ethics, in my opinion he would have refused on moral/Constitutional grounds to go anywhere near defending D.C. Even if it cost him his job.” RM


A final note:

Here’s the kind of disinformation NRA sycophants have been spreading on the Internet. These both come from writer Ken Klukowski see here.

“The libertarian activists behind McDonald openly explain that the reason they are pushing the Court to overrule Slaughter-House has nothing to do with guns.”

Oh yeah? Openly? Who? When? And where, Mr. Klukowski? Has Alan Gura or any of his legal team members said this?

And: “For that reason, the National Rifle Association is working hard to keep the focus of this case where it belongs, on gun rights.”

What a crock of Johnny-come-lately swill! Gura and his crew won Heller! Not the NRA.

My friends, please pay extremely close attention to the McDonald case. There is not a gun owner in America who won’t be deeply affected by the Supreme Court’s decision this summer. This is a “must win” situation for the future of the Second Amendment. This is the critical peaceful showdown that so many of us have been advocating for decades.

(The McDonald case links index page )

Frequent JPFO contributor and strategist, Kirby Ferris collaborated intensively with Aaron Zelman over the last two years. Ferris is now the Operations Manager of JPFO.

See all of Kirby Ferris’ articles.

© Copyright Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Original material on JPFO is copyright, and so it cannot be used or plagiarized as the work of another. JPFO does however encourage article reproduction and sharing, providing full attribution is given and a link back to the original page on JPFO is included.

Back to Top