# NRA support of BAD legislators



## GRAYDOG (Aug 11, 2004)

The hunting issues are not going to be resolved during the legislative session, they will be resolved at the local elections, by electing more sympathetic legislators. One thing we all can do is to let the NRA know that if they continue to support "F" rated legislators like Froliech, Dekrey, or Krauter we will no longer support the NRA. I was really PO'd when I got a letter from the NRA just prior to the elections supporting Dekrey, Wieze, and Klien (district 14), all "F" rated legislators. A good place to start will be the NRA banquets, the NRA rep should be there and it would be a good opportunity to let him know how you feel.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Good post GRAY DOG..I wasn't aware they were supporting them!Thanks for the info.


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

You are comparing apples to oranges if you're comparing gun control issues to hunting issues.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Your right but they are intertwined.

Without guns ....can't hunt

Without a place to hunt what good are guns.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Yep, that's a toughie, and consider a couple of other things. Legislative positions don't necessarily always reflect one's personal views on the subject. Further, one of the persons you mention has allowed me to hunt on his land, just for asking, and would do the same for anyone else who asked, regardless of where they were from. Good man, good family, just doing his job as he perceives it to be. Tricky business, this politics.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Right on Ken.


----------



## GRAYDOG (Aug 11, 2004)

Dan, 
Didn't say they were bad people, just that they were bad legislators. We need people like Dekrey and Froliech (sp) out of office. There is no reason for the NRA to be supporting these guys, when the candidates on the other side are also pro-gun candidates. I think the NRA needs to take into account what the actions of some of these legislators will have on their membership in the future. As Ken said, if you don't hunt, you probably don't have a reason to care about gun rights and that has a direct impact on the NRA's ability to push the pro gun agenda. Legislators like these are pushing agendas that have and will continue to reduce the number of hunters who live in ND, and thereby erodes the support base for NRA's issues.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

How many pro gun legislators that are Democrats has NRA supported?
I know for a fact that a NRA pro gun member Senator was not supported but his Republican opponent at that time who never picked up a gun was supported.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Grandpa said



> Your right but they are intertwined.
> 
> Without guns ....can't hunt
> 
> Without a place to hunt what good are guns.


Please don't forget about us hunters that enjoy the shooting sports also
ie Trap, skeet, sporting clays, cowboy shooting, silehewit, etc. etc .........and the list goes on and on....................


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

"F" rated by whom? The NRA has done more to protect the 2nd ammendment rights of Americans than ANY other organization. If it wasn't for the NRA people would have been hunting with single- shot firearms a long time ago if at all. Go to the Sarah Brady web site to see who the real enemy of gun owners rights are, they have their own grading system.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I can see your point James, but the NRA carries thing WAY to far. We need to get the assault weapons off the streets!!!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Field Hunter said:


> I can see your point James, but the NRA carries thing WAY to far. We need to get the assault weapons off the streets!!!


I find it hard to believe that anyone has a problem with that.... :eyeroll: I guess the NRA feels if they give an inch, the legislature will take 100 miles!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Field Hunter said:


> I can see your point James, but the NRA carries thing WAY to far. We need to get the assault weapons off the streets!!!


A lot of people consider a semi-automatic shotgun to be an assault weapon...or even a BAR as an assault weapon. The problem that arises is when you have a bunch of politicians who've never even shot a gun, deciding which ones should be legal/illegal. Look at the last assault weapon ban, most of their criteria was based on how a gun looked and not on it's capabilitles.

I'd only support a ban once you could guarantee me that there was no chance of a criminal getting his hands on an assault weapon. Until then I see no reason why a law abiding person should not be allowed to own one.

Remember, most assault weapons out there have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car. :roll:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> There is no reason for the NRA to be supporting these guys, when the candidates on the other side are also pro-gun candidates. I think the NRA needs to take into account what the actions of some of these legislators will have on their membership in the future.


Gray,

Tricky business, this politics. I'll bet some of the largest contributors to, and the inner circle of, NRA are the Safari Club International and United States Outfitters crowd, who just happen to be the ones pushing hard nationally for no NR restrictions - buy your way into wherever and whenever and whatever you want.

So, is NRA going to take a stance against its board members and large contributors or against its mass $25/yr members? Neither, it'll accept the ads for the o/g's and print them in the magazines and otherwise give them exposure, but I highly doubt it would expressly pick sides on the commercialization issues either way, either by policy or through the candidates it endorses. It may loose some support for acting that way, but it won't polarize any particular group.

NRA ain't NDWF or USND - different missions, different focus. What I think it'll boils down to is whether you can accept those different (and maybe at times conflicting) missions for what they are and think both orgs are, on the whole, doing more for your varied interests, in which case you'll plug your nose and pay/support both, or you'll decide some of your interests are more important than others and decide that one org. works too much contra to your priority interests and drop the offending org.

Kind of like being a right-leaning sort who favors conservation&#8230;..
:wink:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Field Hunter said:


> I can see your point James, but the NRA carries thing WAY to far. We need to get the assault weapons off the streets!!!


Several of the most used semi-auto shotguns were on the "assault" weapons ban list. The NRA is responsible for getting that list reduced to exclude YOUR hunting gun. You have to carry things as far as the enemy you are fighting against, do you think the Bradys, Schumers and Feinstiens of the of the world are going to "pull" any punches. So-called "assault" weapons account for less than 1% of shootings crimes on the street annually.


----------



## GRAYDOG (Aug 11, 2004)

If there was a clear difference between the candidates, I could accept the NRA's endorsements. In many cases, there is no clear difference, the opposing candidates are supportive of 2nd admendment rights, and all the NRA is doing is supporting the incumbent. In any case, I wanted to point out that the NRA is supporting some very poor legislators from the standpoint of the ND resident hunter, so folks can let the NRA know that they could do better if they choose. The bottom line is we need to get rid of legislators like Dekrey and Froliech any way we can, and letting the NRA know that we are not happy with some of thier endorsements can't hurt.


----------

