NRA response the US Public Land Sale

[PNWtrekker]

I contacted the NRA on June 14 asking what their stance was. On June 24, this was their response to me via email:

"I apologize for the delay in responding; I had sent your question to our federal affairs team to see what the status was:

The proposal by Senator Lee to sell off these public lands was included in the Reconciliation Bill, or as you may know it, the “Big Beautiful Bill.” As of last night, that proposal was sent to the Parliamentarian who rejected it. Senator Lee resubmitted the land sale proposal today, in a much more narrow scope. When I asked Federal Affairs for our NRA position, their response was that we are monitoring it. As hunting is one of our key areas of interest, per our charter, we have a keen interest in this issue, but we cannot have a position until there is a final version. It is highly likely that this proposal will not make it into the final reconciliation bill. Your NRA Federal Affairs team is monitoring any and all developments concerning this proposal, but any NRA support or opposition will be contingent on the actual language of the final proposal. I hope this explanation is helpful."

I am disappointed in this response. Although I have been a member since my 18th birthday several decades ago, I'll be focusing my personal and financial support towards other groups in the future.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Good for you. You should be disappointed, just as was I several decades ago when no longer a member due to NRA far right affiliation and arrogant attitude regarding public service.

 

[Schaaf]

“we cannot have a position until there is a final version”

lol yeah okay. Clowns.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Good for you. You should be disappointed, just as was I several decades ago when no longer a member due to NRA far right affiliation and arrogant attitude regarding public service.

Gun owners of America is superior.

 

[rogerthat]

In all fairness there are a lot of gun owners that don’t gaf about public lands. I don’t blame them for taking a cautious approach to this one.

 

[Southern Elk]

In all fairness there are a lot of gun owners that don’t gaf about public lands. I don’t blame them for taking a cautious approach to this one.

On the flip side, they would have more members if they supported public lands.

 

[TheTone]

Hard to take a stand when they actively endorse many of the people that support selling the land

 

[Jnasa]

At least you got a reply. I haven’t yet.

I seriously question why bother every time I renew my membership.

 

[Bonasababy]

In all fairness there are a lot of gun owners that don’t gaf about public lands. I don’t blame them for taking a cautious approach to this one.

It's not just taking a cautious approach, time and again they have supported legislators who are anti conservation even though their opponent was just as good on guns.

They did not support going forward with the case that led to solidifying the 2nd in the SCUS either.

Left them long ago, along with Bush Senior when they called federal officials "jack booted thugs" after the OKC bombing.

 

[nrpate05]

The NRA is useless and that answer is unsurprising. They back a lot of the folks who support this and they aren't going to stick their neck out on behalf of, I'm assuming, the majority of their members who hunt and support public land.

 

[Hammsolo]

I contacted the NRA on June 14 asking what their stance was. On June 24, this was their response to me via email:

"I apologize for the delay in responding; I had sent your question to our federal affairs team to see what the status was:

The proposal by Senator Lee to sell off these public lands was included in the Reconciliation Bill, or as you may know it, the “Big Beautiful Bill.” As of last night, that proposal was sent to the Parliamentarian who rejected it. Senator Lee resubmitted the land sale proposal today, in a much more narrow scope. When I asked Federal Affairs for our NRA position, their response was that we are monitoring it. As hunting is one of our key areas of interest, per our charter, we have a keen interest in this issue, but we cannot have a position until there is a final version. It is highly likely that this proposal will not make it into the final reconciliation bill. Your NRA Federal Affairs team is monitoring any and all developments concerning this proposal, but any NRA support or opposition will be contingent on the actual language of the final proposal. I hope this explanation is helpful."

I am disappointed in this response. Although I have been a member since my 18th birthday several decades ago, I'll be focusing my personal and financial support towards other groups in the future.

Talk about not taking a stand. They explained what you already knew to make it seem like they’re on your team and appease you. This is a classic tactic. Then they drop the old legal/HR move that they can’t comment because they don’t have a final picture and can’t.

Such BS. Worst case, they should have stated their actual values around the situation that they would apply once the “final version” is proposed. However, we must remember each Mike Lee Snake Oil Pitch has been his final version. He’s just adapted it due to losing. He’s a conman and will just keep adapting because his goal is to appease his donors. He doesn’t give two squirts of piss and one shit (as my buddy Jim would say) about public land and/or affordable housing

 

[Chama Grande]

"The proposal by Senator Lee to sell off these public lands was included in the Reconciliation Bill, or as you may know it, the “Big Beautiful Bill.” As of last night, that proposal was sent to the Parliamentarian who rejected it. Senator Lee resubmitted the land sale proposal today, in a much more narrow scope. When I asked Federal Affairs for our NRA position, their response was that we are monitoring it. As hunting is one of our key areas of interest, per our charter, we have a keen interest in this issue, but we cannot have a position until there is a final version. It is highly likely that this proposal will not make it into the final reconciliation bill. Your NRA Federal Affairs team is monitoring any and all developments concerning this proposal, but any NRA support or opposition will be contingent on the actual language of the final proposal. I hope this explanation is helpful."

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I contacted the NRA on June 14 asking what their stance was. On June 24, this was their response to me via email:

"I apologize for the delay in responding; I had sent your question to our federal affairs team to see what the status was:

The proposal by Senator Lee to sell off these public lands was included in the Reconciliation Bill, or as you may know it, the “Big Beautiful Bill.” As of last night, that proposal was sent to the Parliamentarian who rejected it. Senator Lee resubmitted the land sale proposal today, in a much more narrow scope. When I asked Federal Affairs for our NRA position, their response was that we are monitoring it. As hunting is one of our key areas of interest, per our charter, we have a keen interest in this issue, but we cannot have a position until there is a final version. It is highly likely that this proposal will not make it into the final reconciliation bill. Your NRA Federal Affairs team is monitoring any and all developments concerning this proposal, but any NRA support or opposition will be contingent on the actual language of the final proposal. I hope this explanation is helpful."

I am disappointed in this response. Although I have been a member since my 18th birthday several decades ago, I'll be focusing my personal and financial support towards other groups in the future.

Did you ask them their stance on the BBB or on Mike Lee's specific proposal?

To me they are answering like you asked them to take a stance on the bill in it's entirety which isn't finalized yet. I doubt that's the case and seems like a way to skirt your likely question.

I have been disappointed for several years, I believe there is another thread about corruption in NRA leadership on here somewhere. My grandfather got me a lifetime membership when I was like 13 or 14. The American Rifleman magazine is largely useless and just puppets new release guns I usually have no interest in, but I still flip through the pages every month mostly for nostalgia of how cool it seemed when I was in high school. NRA membership is also required to shoot at the Logan range so doesn't seem worth "recanting" my membership if that's even possible.

 

[NDGuy]

“we cannot have a position until there is a final version”

lol yeah okay. Clowns.

 

[huntnpack]

So much recreational shooting occurs on public lands. This is a no brainer. Someone isnt putting the shooting community first. Not shocking.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

So much recreational shooting occurs on public lands. This is a no brainer. Someone isnt putting the shooting community first. Not shocking.

Particularly so “close to population centers”.

 

[BrentD]

Gun owners of America is superior.

Then what is their public lands position?

I am an NRA member more or less because I have to be. But I find them hypocritical in the extreme with not even a hint of an apology for Wayne, among so many other things. They are pretty much anti conservation si far as i can tell.

 

[Bonasababy]

For me the issue is that NRA claims to only be about guns AND hunting use of guns but routinely shows it's highly partisan reality and routinely supports candidates who are horrible on conservation causes. To the best of my knowledge GOA sticks much closer to just being about guns and is not so partisan.

 

[Forkyfinder]

For me the issue is that NRA claims to only be about guns AND hunting use of guns but routinely shows it's highly partisan reality and routinely supports candidates who are horrible on conservation causes. To the best of my knowledge GOA sticks much closer to just being about guns and is not so partisan.

Theyre guns and only guns. But unlike the nra - they dont believe in "compromise"

 

[peterk1234]

In all fairness there are a lot of gun owners that don’t gaf about public lands. I don’t blame them for taking a cautious approach to this one.

I still hang around a New England shooting forum. I tried to raise awareness about this issue. Nobody cares. One person even mocked me and called me brain dead. Fortunately their senators are all hard core democrats so their vote is the default NO for the BBB.

NRA seems to have lost a lot of influence in recent years. They still have many members and influence in congress. I don't believe they would burn political and membership capital if they were to support the cause. They may actually pick up members they lost if they'd throw support at this.