National Association for Gun Rights

[Maximumbob54]

Does anyone know much about the NAGR? Are they worth joining? As in do they have much of a voice and do they really do much for your rights if you send them money? The last thing I want to do right now is send money for no reason other than for someone to send out pamphlets and emails. I want to know if they have a real voice that is listened to like the NRA is in Washington. I'm not usually a fan of lobbyists in Washington but if they are 2nd amendment lobbyists for gun rights then I can get behind that. I'm sure they are on the right side, but do they make a difference?

 

[oldman45]

Never heard of them until I read this post.

They may be huge and great but I have been a gun fanatic for longer than most here are old and never heard of them. From what I just found on the internet, they are a scam but google their name and add scam.

That said, every group had to start somewhere. Ten yrs from now they may be a powerful force, assuming we still have guns then. With the reputation they have now, I would not give them a dime.

 

[oldman45]

OK, I did some deep water checking on this outfit. It appears to be nothing more than a way to raise money for the two people that run it. They use outdated info to entice people to donate. Their fed tax returns are so vague that they are lucky they are in audited. Donations are running about $150,000 per yr and their expenses are way more than that. Of course, the head of it gets a nice salary as does his partner.

Many places on the internet refers to it as a scam and I see nothing that would cause me to disagree. I found many gun sites where it was discussed and then some new member with his first post defends the operation and never posts again.

What I could not find is any legislation they sponsored but plenty of trips the head honchos made to gun shows and such at the expense of the association.

Again, they may have some positive things going for them but I have not found it. The President seems to enjoy having his photo made with people of importance at NRA functions.

I am now wondering if maybe I and the CajunLawyer could form a Louisiana Pro Gun Group. We could sell memberships and get us some travelling and gun money. Anyone here want to join in on the ground floor?

 

[ace22]

i've been a shooter/collector for over 30yrs and i never heard of them either and was going to check up on them but i'll take oldman's word for it.

 

[OKFC05]

Unfortunately there are several of these llittle groups whose net real effect is zero.

There the NRA and the state organizations and the individuals in their districts, as far as Congress is concerned.

If you want to add more effect than supporting the NRA and your state organization, write a letter to your members of Congress concerning a bill now on the docket, and tell them what you think as a voter from their district.

 

[jlrhiner]

The first I heard of them was a recent Rand Paul email that my sister recieved. In it they were calling attention to the UN effort to ban guns. That seemed a little odd as I haven't heard anything on that in a couple of years. I too did some checking on them and came to the same conclusion as posted before. If money has to go somewhere, It's the NRA or a local org. dealing with regional issues.

 

[T.Webb]

The NAGR is not a registered lobbyist. It's just Dudley Brown, and his attorney Luke Odell.

Dudley Brown used to run the Colorado Association of Gun Rights.

The NAGR claims to have been instrumental in both the McDonald and Heller cases, but I couldn't find a single mention of them in either case. Not even a supporting brief.

I work too hard for my money, so I'll just stick with supporting the NRA and the SAF.

 

[Dranix]

email

I got this in an email. tryin to be slick.


The Obama Administration's IRS and FEC won't let the National Association for Gun Rights PAC inform non-members of NAGR who they should -- and shouldn’t -- support in the upcoming election.

As the head of the mail room here at NAGR, my staff has been staying busy processing thousands of new members coming on board in recent weeks.

Since you aren't a "legal member" of NAGR, Dudley asked me to encourage you to chip in at least $5 right now to become a "legal member" of NAGR.

Once you become a "legal member," when the elections start cranking up next year, the NAGR PAC will be able to "legally" tell you which candidates for elected office are "good guys" on guns, and which ones are the gun-grabbers.

Please click on the picture below and chip in at least $5 so the NAGR PAC can "legally" tell you which candidates are good and which ones are bad.

-- Ashley



From: Dudley Brown [mailto[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2011 1:05 PM
Subject: Silenced by Obama



Dear Jessica,

I’m in a bind.

It’s illegal for me to tell you which candidates the National Association for Gun Rights PAC supports. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) expressly forbid me from telling you which candidates are so solid on gun rights that I want you to help us help them.

It sounds crazy, I know.

But the anti-gun Obamacrats who run the federal government don’t want gun owners and activists like you and me to be organized going into the 2012 election.

That’s why the IRS/FEC will only let me tell “a restricted class” of “legal members” of the National Association for Gun Rights who they should -- and shouldn’t -- support in the election.

The good news is, I’ve found a loophole around their legal gag, and frankly it’s pretty easy.

All you need to do is chip in at least $5 (or more), and take a positive pro-gun action, and you can then be counted as part of our “legal membership.”

So I've set up a page for you to do just that when you click here.



It’s that easy. Once you’re considered what the bureaucrats call a “legal member of the Organization’s restricted class” I can tell you which candidates to support, and which anti-gunners to oppose.

Are you upset with our government’s attempts to take away your rights?

Are you angry at the way politicians are trashing our God-given liberties and the Constitution?

Do you get tired of hearing the election season lies politicians tell about their supposed “support” of your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

And it is very important you act today because election season is the best time to hold politicians accountable. Nothing is more important to a politician than getting elected or re-elected.

That’s why the politicians and their bureaucratic allies put up as many road blocks as possible to make it hard for individuals and groups of like-minded gun activists to influence elections.



Due to the onerous, free speech-violating elections laws, the National Association for Gun Rights and our members are severely limited in what we can and can’t do during the election season.

I formed a Political Action Committee (PAC) for the National Association for Gun Rights to do exactly what needs to be done to hold politicians accountable without worrying about getting hauled into an IRS audit or a federal courtroom.

Through the National Association for Gun Rights PAC, we can now expressly advocate for the election -- or defeat -- of politicians across the country.

That’s why I’m asking you to do me a personal favor -- and a favor for the cause we share by taking the simple step of clicking HERE and taking the simple actions.



I know I don’t have to tell you that the coming election is pivotal for our gun rights. The Obama administration is desperate to pay off the anti-gunners, and I need to be able to mobilize as many gun owners as possible in the coming election.

That’s why I started the National Association for Gun Rights PAC in the first place, so gun owners like you and me can have a direct impact on the elections that are so vital to our gun rights.

With the specter of the United Nations’ “Small Arms Treaty” gun ban looming on the horizon, and President Obama’s pledge to pursue gun control “under the radar,” now is NOT the time for gun owners to sit on the sidelines.

I need gun owners and activists just like you to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me against the anti-gunners in both parties.

To do that, I need to be able to communicate directly with you through our Political Action Committee. I can’t do that unless you’re a “legal member of the restricted class” of National Association for Gun Rights membership.

The National Association for Gun Rights PAC is already involved in important Federal races, but I simply can’t tell you which ones.

I can’t risk the legal battle that would surely follow.

The good news is, I’ve found an easy loophole that will keep you connected with the National Association for Gun Rights PAC, and keep you on the frontlines of the most important battles in the coming election.

All you need to do is chip in at least $5, right now, so you can be counted as part of our “legal membership.”



It’s that easy. Once you’re considered a “legal member of the Organization’s restricted class” I can tell you which candidates to support, and which anti-gunners to oppose.

It will only take a few moments. I hope I can count on you to become a “legal member of the Organization’s restricted class” so I can speak directly to you about which candidates gun owners should support, and which ones we need to fight.

For Freedom,


Dudley Brown
Executive Director

P.S. The IRS/FEC expressly forbids me to tell you which candidates have my endorsement.

That’s why the IRS/FEC will only let me tell “a restricted class” of “legal members” of the National Association for Gun Rights who they should -- and shouldn’t -- support in the election.

The good news is, I’ve found a loophole around their legal gag, and frankly it’s pretty easy.

All you need to do is chip in at least $5, right now, so you can be counted as part of our “legal membership.”

It’s that easy. Once you’re considered a “legal member of the Organization’s restricted class” I can tell you which candidates to support, and which anti-gunners to oppose.


The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is P.O. 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570.

 

[thndrchiken]

I agree my money goes to the NRA, ANJRPC and the NJ2AF. Mr. Brown's emails that come out two to three times a day are more obnoxious with the money requests than anything the NRA has ever done.

 

[smitholdtimer]

NAGR

I get E mail from Dudley and always notice at the bottom they want money, my opinion is that you will receive much better representation from the NRA than any other so-called "rights protectors". I have been represented by them since 1963 or 1964 when I joined as a young military member who had to have his commanding officer sign for him to become a life member.

 

[thndrchiken]

I get E mail from Dudley and always notice at the bottom they want money, my opinion is that you will receive much better representation from the NRA than any other so-called "rights protectors". I have been represented by them since 1963 or 1964 when I joined as a young military member who had to have his commanding officer sign for him to become a life member.

What'd that run back then about $40? Life Member now is $1k.

 

[Brock_Manson]

The NAGR is not a registered lobbyist. It's just Dudley Brown, and his attorney Luke Odell.

Dudley Brown used to run the Colorado Association of Gun Rights.

The NAGR claims to have been instrumental in both the McDonald and Heller cases, but I couldn't find a single mention of them in either case. Not even a supporting brief.

I work too hard for my money, so I'll just stick with supporting the NRA and the SAF.

Wow. What passes for "research" on here is simply stunning.

1) Luke O'Dell is not an attorney.

2) There are currently about 15 or so people that work, full time, for NAGR.

4) Dudley Brown never ran an organization by the name of "Colorado Association of Gun Rights." He has -- and continues to -- run for a number of years an organization called Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

5) NAGR's amicus brief was, in fact, quoted in the McDonald case.

There's 5 points on which you are completely incorrect and can be figured out in about 10 minutes of Googling and, get this, picking up the phone and calling the organization.

For the rest of you -- and especially the guy who claims to be a shooting fanatic yet never hearing of NAGR -- being into "shooting" and into "politics" is two entirely separate things. You could be Rob Leatham or Jerry Miculek and not know the first frackin' thing about how to get people elected to office or how to push a bill through a legislature.

Guess what? Finding other forums like this one where six guys sit around and spout the same thing does not constitute "research." Did any of you think about contacting the source and asking them?

If you had, you might know that NAGR was instrumental in getting Constitutional Carry passed in Wyoming -- only the fourth state in the country to have that law. In my book, that's a pretty big win, but most didn't hear about it simply because the supposedly-great NRA was nowhere near it. NAGR is also closely aligned with several state-level groups like Georgia Gun Owners, Iowa Gun Owners, Wyoming Gun Owners, a gun group in Virgina and one in New Hampshire, in addition to major political forces such as Campaign for Liberty and the National Right to Work Organization.

Now, with all of that, who still thinks they are a two-man organization that isn't doing anything? And, if so, please do share your sources.

Brock Manson
A Voice

 

[PALADIN85020]

The NAGR (Dudley Brown) came out AGAINST the concealed carry reciprocity bill now moving through Congress, claiming it could be modified to become a trojan horse.

Also, they are using scare tactics about the U.N. arms treaty, knowing full well the Senate will not approve it even if Obama tries to ram it through - this in an effort to increase donations.

The more I learn about them, the more I'd have to say they are not worth the effort. Stick with the NRA and GOA.

John

 

[Brock_Manson]

The NAGR (Dudley Brown) came out AGAINST the concealed carry reciprocity bill now moving through Congress, claiming it could be modified to become a trojan horse.

Also, they are using scare tactics about the U.N. arms treaty, knowing full well the Senate will not approve it even if Obama tries to ram it through - this in an effort to increase donations.

The more I learn about them, the more I'd have to say they are not worth the effort. Stick with the NRA and GOA.

John

John,

They were right to speak against HR 822 for numerous reasons. Maybe you should call them and ask them why they did that? It *has* be amended. Point of fact, their claims have -- despite what the NRA says -- already proven true. The bill has already been amended and it isn't even out of committee in a Republican-controlled House. Imagine what happens when it gets to Harry Reid's Senate.

Do I know the Senate won't approve the UN's proposed Treaty? How do I know that? Remember who controls the Senate (referenced above).

And by "stick with the NRA and GOA" do you mean the same NRA and GOA that are fundraising off of, you guessed it, the UN Small Arms Treaty? I know for a fact that Wayne Lapierre has spoken about that subject on the world's stage more than once and they are cranking out emails regarding the subject. So if you claim that NAGR is using "scare tactics" regarding the UN, then you better point that criticism at the other two groups instead of advocating for them.

Or do you mean the NRA that compromised on the 1934 Act? Or the 1968 GCA? Or the "Assault Weapons" ban in 1994? Or the NRA that has rated politicians with "A's" who have consistently voted against the Second Amendment? Do I hear Harry Reid's name, anyone? No? How about the current governor of Montana, who just vetoed Constitutional Carry there despite his "A" rating from the NRA? Or, better yet, how about endorsing 13 of Nancy Pelosi's "most protected" Congressman in the 2010 elections? Is that the NRA you're talking about?

I'm guessing that, after reading that paragraph, most of you are either completely unaware of those facts or are mad because you think I'm lying or being arrogant. If the latter is the case, do your research. If it's the former, don't listen to the people who tell you that the NRA is looking out for your best interest.

Brock Manson
A Voice

 

[PALADIN85020]

John,

They were right to speak against HR 822 for numerous reasons. Maybe you should call them and ask them why they did that? It *has* be amended. Point of fact, their claims have -- despite what the NRA says -- already proven true. The bill has already been amended and it isn't even out of committee in a Republican-controlled House. Imagine what happens when it gets to Harry Reid's Senate.

Do I know the Senate won't approve the UN's proposed Treaty? How do I know that? Remember who controls the Senate (referenced above).

And by "stick with the NRA and GOA" do you mean the same NRA and GOA that are fundraising off of, you guessed it, the UN Small Arms Treaty? I know for a fact that Wayne Lapierre has spoken about that subject on the world's stage more than once and they are cranking out emails regarding the subject. So if you claim that NAGR is using "scare tactics" regarding the UN, then you better point that criticism at the other two groups instead of advocating for them.

Or do you mean the NRA that compromised on the 1934 Act? Or the 1968 GCA? Or the "Assault Weapons" ban in 1994? Or the NRA that has rated politicians with "A's" who have consistently voted against the Second Amendment? Do I hear Harry Reid's name, anyone? No? How about the current governor of Montana, who just vetoed Constitutional Carry there despite his "A" rating from the NRA? Or, better yet, how about endorsing 13 of Nancy Pelosi's "most protected" Congressman in the 2010 elections? Is that the NRA you're talking about?

I'm guessing that, after reading that paragraph, most of you are either completely unaware of those facts or are mad because you think I'm lying or being arrogant. If the latter is the case, do your research. If it's the former, don't listen to the people who tell you that the NRA is looking out for your best interest.

Brock Manson
A Voice

Hi, Brock -

For the record, I'm neither unaware nor mad. I have no illusions about the omnipotence of the NRA, but this discussion is more about the NAGR, which is a newcomer on the stage.

My understanding is that 60 Senators (some of both parties) have already written to Obama indicating they would never vote for the U.N. Arms Treaty if contains anything abrogating 2nd Amendment rights. In other words, it will be dead on arrival. I believe this to be true, and building up hysteria over the treaty, whether by the NAGR or the NRA, simply to get more funding, is not warranted at this time. It bears watching, of course. But I doubt that the treaty will be accepted by our legislators. NAGR is also bleating about Carolyn McCarthy's gun-ban proposals, which will never see the light of day outside of committee.

So far, amendments to the CC reciprocity bill have been positive (pro-gun) ones. The NRA is cautioning about any other amendments, and the co-sponsors are vehement about not modifying it further. There are enough pro-gun people in Congress to vote down any anti-gun amendments. There are a number of issues to be worked out; hopefully this will be done with a view towards reasonableness that makes sense to all of us who carry concealed. The main problem that I see is that such a bill will never be signed into law until after the next national election, if you get my drift.

You are right - the NRA, GOA or any of the other gun lobbyists are not perfect. I've often taken the NRA to task on a number of issues. However, it's the thousand-pound gorilla in Congress, and I've never regretted sending them money from time to time when I think they are making sense. My only point is that NAGR seems to be only a money-making scheme for its founders, and so far I am not impressed with them.

Hope this explains my thinking more thoroughly - we're on the same side, and infighting among pro-gun people strikes me as very counterproductive. I'd like to think that also applies to pro-gun groups. Huddling and strategizing together in a spirit of cooperation would make more sense. We have a common enemy in the hoplophobic gun-grabbers, and we need to concentrate on defeating their agendas.

John

 

[oldman45]

I bet we have a member that is with the aforementioned group. As another said, someone joined a site just to defend them and never posted again. Now there is a new member here with two postings and both about the group after joining one day and ten days later has not returned.

Still, there is so much scam about the group and the background, along with nothing to confim any of their claims, I will not be giving them any money.

And for the record, I am very political, both in State and Federal politics and I still have never heard of them.

 

[smitholdtimer]

thndrchicken

For the record the cost was $100, not a huge sum but for a young person on military pay it was enough, money well spent too!

 

[crsides]

That was a month or two's pay back then, right Sam.

$1000 sounds like a deal now.



Charlie

 

[hatt]

The NAGR (Dudley Brown) came out AGAINST the concealed carry reciprocity bill now moving through Congress, claiming it could be modified to become a trojan horse.

John

Sounds like they have some sense. I'm going to have to check into them.

 

[Fishslayer]

By chance is NAGR based in Nigeria?