Don’t shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 17-5-2010 @ 11:07 AM by clay2 baraka

"North Carolina State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the Charlotte Convention Center, and the Time Warner Cable Arena," the sign outside the convention hall reads. "In addition, the Rules and Regulations of the Charlotte Convention Center prohibit the carrying of firearms in the Center. Pursuant to Time Warner Cable Arena policy, all individuals entering the Arena will be subject to a magnetometer security check."

Sound like the entryway into this years' Netroots Nation, a convention of liberal bloggers?

Well, it isn't: it's the sign outside the door to the convention for the country's largest gun rights organization, the NRA.

While the National Rifle Association is pushing for looser rules governing concealed weapons, they've agreed to restrictions opposing to the weapons appearing on their own convention floor. The national gun lobby held their event in Charlotte, NC this past weekend.

rawstory.com...

This is where the disconnect begins:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is waging a campaign against state laws that permit businesses to bar firearms from company property--and against organizations that support such company policies.

In August the NRA issued a call to its members for a boycott against Houston-based
ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 products. The energy and refinery giant loomed into the NRA's crosshairs when it became a plaintiff in a suit to overturn a 2004 Oklahoma state law that bars businesses from prohibiting firearms in locked vehicles on company property.

NRA Takes aim at employers that ban guns

It seems to me the NRA is trying to play this issue both ways. I like how this open carry advocate summarized it:

One gun-rights enthusiast writing on an open-carry forum said he was confused by the organization's justification for a gun ban at their event.

"I'm scratching my head here," the poster wrote. "Shouldn't the NRA go out of its way to accommodate the gun-carrying (not just the gun owning) public?

"Why not a gathering at some sort of park, private club, or open carry friendly restaurant? (renting out an entire large restaurant that is confirmed to be gun-carry friendly and legal) Are they saying they are not truly smart or savvy enough to find a place that will accomplish this goal and show us as we truly are instead of disarming us? If a gun show can be held at the State Fairgrounds (or a convention center or some place like that), why not a gun-owner gathering?"

"I just don't get it," the poster added.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 11:46 AM by thisguyrighthere

The NRA is much more a political machine than a 2nd Amendment group. There are numerous reason I refuse to be a member.

That said, this was a private function and they can ban guns into it if they want.

Another disconnect among the fake 2nd A crowd is their seemingly unified stance on abortion. They harp day and night how gun control only hurts the lawful gun owner then push for abortion control. Criminals not being followers of the law is a major point of their attempt to get it across to the thicker heads that laws and regulations do not prevent or stop crimes. So ban abortion to stop abortion? Yeah. Makes a lot of sense.

I dont mean to derail but I just got off of an argument with some folks at my gun club about this. They were railing against libertarianism because they were all about saving the fetus. When I related their position to their position on firearms they became defensive and dumb falling back on stereotypical standbys.

In the end it would seem that 80% + of the population is simply authoritarian. Sure, some of them have their personal things they would rather not lose but at the same time they think they have the right to force others to lose the personal things they would rather not lose.

American politics has become an arena of children all trying to get each other in trouble.

How did we stray so far from liberty? Makes me sad and sick all at once.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 11:51 AM by clay2 baraka

So how are the NRA's actions on this matter in sync with their political, lobbying platform?

More and more, it seems like this organization is being manipulated as a political tool to press a political base on hot button issues to get people running to the polls when needed.

Why are the open carry, Tea Partier's not taking issue with this?

The silence is deafening.

[edit on 5/17/2010 by clay2 baraka]

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 12:00 PM by clay2 baraka

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

It appears that we agree on several points on this issue. I think there is a need for a group such as the NRA to act as a watchdog for 2nd amendment issues, but over the years it has been corrupted and is now being used as another political party proxy instead of as a lobbying organization.

I agree with the sentiment that the convention center can place it's own restrictions, but as I linked to in the original post that is something that the NRA has lobbied precisely against. The NRA double-standard on that stance reeks of false outrage and political pandering.

[edit on 5/17/2010 by clay2 baraka]

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 12:51 PM by PatesHatriots

Wouldn't it be hilariously ironic if a crazy nutjob went in there and started shooting up the place?

Anyway, not sure what I think of the NRA. They seem to pick the strangest battles and shrink away from 2nd Amendment rights battles you'd think they would dive on.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 12:57 PM by DarkStormCrow

From what I understand the NRA isnt banning guns at their meeting. The
Charlotte Convention Center has standing regulations against gun, which most public convention centers have, as do concert arenas, courthouses and what not, the raw story article is very misleading with its title.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 01:16 PM by Wayne60

reply to post by DarkStormCrow

Thanks. I was about to ask if the convention center had a standing ban on gun carry, as any business is legally entitled to do so long as it is conspicuously posted.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 01:25 PM by clay2 baraka

reply to post by DarkStormCrow

The NRA had a choice of venues to host their convention and they have chosen sites (Phoenix), in the past that were open-carry friendly. The argument from the NRA is that if they chose an open-carry site as a criteria for the location of the event it would "restrict them to 2-3 sites."

I find that to be a weak argument akin to a atheist convention being hosted at a cathedral. It demonstrates a lack of passion on the part of the NRA to the open-carry movement that they push along.

The NRA is more about politics than ideals. That is the point and it is demonstrable to anyone with an objective viewpoint.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 01:46 PM by DarkStormCrow

Still the article is misleading, the NRA isnt the ones that have banned guns at thier meeting. Most public owned convention centers throughout the US have regulations about carrying firearms at public events such as conventions, sporting events, concerts and what have you.

The Convention center is within its rights to regulate firearms by North Carolina State law.

I attended the ShotShow back in 2005 here in Las Vegas, while there may have been many displays with firearms and whatnot, and even though I may have a concealed carry permit for Nevada, that does not entitle me to break state or local law and carry a firearm in a restricted venue.

Not that I give a crap about the NRA one way or the other, I have my own issues with the organization, I really dont see this as a big deal , and maybe by having the convention there they will spur a movement to make North Carolina change the preemption laws.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 02:02 PM by earthdude

I bet they had a choice: ban guns or ban cocktails. They chose the cocktails. Many US states have laws to keep alcohol and guns seperate. This is because of people's tendancy to start shooting once they get drunk. NRA members are not known for their opposition to alcohol consumption, in fact they seem to love the booze.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 09:34 PM by jdub297

reply to post by clay2 baraka

The NRA did NOT ban guns from its meeting.

The Convention Center bans "carrying concealed" weapons.

According to legitimate news sources, there were thousands of guns available for sale and in collectors' displays.

This policy has nothing to do whatsoever with political positions.

Anyone who would conflate libertarianism, abortion rights, the 2nd
amendment, tea party conservatives, and conservatism generally is either trying to push a phony political agenda or just doesn't understand the basic differences and positions.

jw

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 09:49 PM by clay2 baraka

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by clay2 baraka

The NRA did NOT ban guns from its meeting.

Same difference. Choosing a venue that prohibits open carry all the while lobbying and railing against businesses that prohibit open carry firearms.. Double standard.

Did you click on any above links?

The Convention Center bans "carrying concealed" weapons.

And open carry as well. .

According to legitimate news sources, there were thousands of guns available for sale and in collectors' displays.

Naming legitimate sources would be helpful, but you are putting forth a straw man argument as we were not discussing the sale of unloaded firearms at the convention but the wearing, open or concealed of those weapons.

This policy has nothing to do whatsoever with political positions.

Anyone who would conflate libertarianism, abortion rights, the 2nd
amendment, tea party conservatives, and conservatism generally is either trying to push a phony political agenda or just doesn't understand the basic differences and positions.

Someone in this thread jumbled all of those subjects together? Really?

[edit on 5/17/2010 by clay2 baraka]

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 10:08 PM by clay2 baraka

Originally posted by earthdude
I bet they had a choice: ban guns or ban cocktails. They chose the cocktails. Many US states have laws to keep alcohol and guns seperate. This is because of people's tendancy to start shooting once they get drunk. NRA members are not known for their opposition to alcohol consumption, in fact they seem to love the booze.

That's a pretty rational explanation and I remember reading it elsewhere.

The NRA's double standard on this still bothers me a lot. They feel that they can dictate that a co-worker can bring a gun to work, (fun if you work for the postal service), but then look the other way when they choose a venue that disallows the same practice.

It's either about the booze or they don't really care about the issue. . Politics. Meh.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 10:22 PM by Wolf321

I think it would have been better for them to choose a different venue considering their stance on issues of gun control and their campaigns to get people to protest/boycott or whatnot.

Still, I am grateful they exist. I have seen the states that issue and recognize CCW permits increase almost nationwide from only a couple of states, in my lifetime, thanks in large part to the efforts of the NRA.

It is pretty typical that there is politics, double standards, hypocrisy nd general corruption in almost every organization once it gets too large for a single individual to oversee.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Another disconnect among the fake 2nd A crowd is their seemingly unified stance on abortion. They harp day and night how gun control only hurts the lawful gun owner then push for abortion control. Criminals not being followers of the law is a major point of their attempt to get it across to the thicker heads that laws and regulations do not prevent or stop crimes. So ban abortion to stop abortion? Yeah. Makes a lot of sense.

What exactly is the 'fake 2nd A crowd?'

I consider myself in the group you mention, in that I am very much pro-gun rights as well as pro-life. I don't see how the two are in conflict. I see them both as defending life. One ensures a person has the ability to defend life, the other prohibits the destruction of life.

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 10:42 PM by jdub297

reply to post by clay2 baraka

Same difference. Choosing a venue that prohibits open carry all the while lobbying and railing against businesses that prohibit open carry firearms.. Double standard.

Did you click on any above links?

No, it's not "same difference." Many venues prohibit weapons, loaded or unloaded. It's a general safety policy to prevent idiots from harming certain gatherings of people.

No one in the NRA has proposed that they should carry weapons to schools or courthouses, or similar venues.

I read your "sources," and they are purposely misleading.

I have to remove my weapon when I go to court, or to a liquor store in my State.

That is a "reasonable restriction" permitted by the Constitution.

This thread is based on a false representation.

jw

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 10:25 AM by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Wolf321
What exactly is the 'fake 2nd A crowd?'

I consider myself in the group you mention, in that I am very much pro-gun rights as well as pro-life. I don't see how the two are in conflict. I see them both as defending life. One ensures a person has the ability to defend life, the other prohibits the destruction of life.