Confused (again)

[Ronvandyn]

Hi folks, maybe I misheard this (not likely, I backed it up and replayed it twice).  I am currently catching up on my Armed American Radio episodes via Podcast, and was shocked to hear Mark mention during the round table that the SAF was the group that brought a law suit against our fine Omaha city counsel for their policy on refusing to allow legal aliens to register a handgun. 

SAF?  I thought WE were the one's who brought the suit?  Now of course I have not completely caught up on the program, so I dont know if there was a correction since then, but what the HECK?

I cant catch the program live, but in my car while driving to and from work, or while at work and doing that dang paperwork, I can listen.  Is there a correction, or did the SAF actually bring this instead of us?

Ron

[AAllen]

It was both us and the SAF.  The SAF was the big dog with the cash though.

[Ronvandyn]

Ahh, ok.  But to get no acknowledgement at all?  That just rubs me wrong, SAF would have never known about the situation without us. 

Oh well.  I suppose winning was more important.   

Ron

[FarmerRick]

When the NRA reported about the suit, they only said that Armando Pliego Gonzalez was suing Omaha.  Nothing about the NFOA or SAF.

Not surprised, are you?

[WESchultz]

IMO – some basic facts – let me repeat IMO… my opinion isn’t meant to start any discussion.
These are some of the reasons I feel the NRA didn’t comment about the NFOA or SAF, especially when it comes to publishing information for all to see or hear.

(1) Any good attorney can tell you one of the first things taught in law school is, “NO ONE, especially an attorney, commits anything to paper, unless it’s absolutely necessary.” That’s a lesson we can all learn.

(2) Any organization, with an ounce of brains, would never mention a “competitive” organization as being successful. When it comes to membership recruiting for either organization, there is money at stake.  Personally, I don’t feel there is any love lost between the NRA and the SAF even if we are on the same side of the 2nd amendment.

(3) The NFOA IS NOT a recognized NRA organization. Because, “recognized” NRA organizations have 100% NRA membership. We DO NOT want NRA membership as a NFOA membership requirement.

(4) Was the NRA even asked to initially participate in this litigation?

(5) Remember, when it comes to changing or implementing legislation, we (the NFOA) hunts with the big dogs, both the SAF and the especially the NRA. Why, because both organizations hold the purse strings (and more importantly - the voters), that any level of government politician will listen to.

Again, this is just my opinion and is not intended to start any discussion.

[AAllen]

Ahh, ok.  But to get no acknowledgement at all?  That just rubs me wrong, SAF would have never known about the situation without us. 

Oh well.  I suppose winning was more important.   

Ron

Ron if it helps any I know that the press release that was put out by the SAF included the NFOA.  Also we have been on Armed American Radio, and will be again, so I don't see there being problem.

Also Bill's assesment of the NRA story/info is correct.  The NRA does not give credit to other organizations when they do things and it has to due with fundraising.  The understanding and acceptance of that is important if we wish to have a working relationship with the rest of the pack.  The SAF, NRA, GOA ect. are all the big dogs, and by understanding and respecting their possition we are able to get their assistance on our isssues (example the SAF assistance with the Omaha case). 

The NRA did step in and assist with the bill negotiations with the City.  Did they do anything big, no, but their attandance and support for our possition help add power to our position.  Sometimes its the little things that we need to be happy with.