[Malum Prohibitum]

I do not know that I have ever criticized them for compromising. GCO compromised just to get a bill initiated to repeal the public gathering prohibition (no, the legislators aren't ready yet to repeal every last off limits restriction, so compromise is necessary of we are going to move forward with repealing any restrictions). Compromises are fine as long as we move forward.

In addition, GCO is already moving forward with liasons with the NRA. As an example, the NRA has already given its blessing to our legislative efforts in 2008 (a necessary step in this state).

So both of the things you listed: compromise and liason, are not really a concern for me.

What concerns me is when the NRA actively undermines the cause from moving forward. As an example HB 89, back in the 2007 session.

I could list other things - but I do not want to get that started again.

Suffice it to say that such actions baffle me, but I expect to see less of them in Georgia as GCO moves forward.

 

[Tinkerhell]

In addition, GCO is already moving forward with liasons with the NRA. As an example, the NRA has already given its blessing to our legislative efforts in 2008 (a necessary step in this state).

So does this mean that the NRA & GCO will basically be working together in 08 rather than end up with clashing objectives?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I will report back in May of 2008 . . . :lol:

 

[Adam5]

GCO is already moving forward with liasons with the NRA. As an example, the NRA has already given its blessing to our legislative efforts in 2008 (a necessary step in this state).

I think this will be a big help. Having someone to relate GCO's position on GA issues is a good idea. I think one of the issues in the '07 session was GCO supporting one bill while the NRA supported another. I think that having a liason and opening a solis line of cimmunication will help us work together towards common goals.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

I'm an NRA member as well. I don't agree with some of the things they do, either. But, overall I feel that their lobbying power is something that needs supporting.

A "no compromise stand" is great in theory. There are some causes that support the need for that stand. I'm not so sure that specific issues within the whole realm of RTKBA will get solved with such a hard line. If it came down to putting up a fight to keep the 2nd amendment from being abolished, then yeah... NO COMPROMISE. But we have to work with people in a bureaucratic government. We have to be able to appear flexible. We have to be prepared to shuck and jive a little to gain some ground.

I'm not saying that the NRA should be soft and giving. I'm saying that the NRA should be supported and changed as often as needed to keep the right things in focus. They aren't going to do the perfectly right thing 100% of the time, and as members we should call them on everything that's not being adressed properly. After all, isn't that what we do with respect to our elected officials? A lot of people vote along party lines because of core issues. Yet no party please anyone 100% of the time. We call and write our elected officials when they do something that we don't agree with. We don't just turn our heads in disdain and refuse to vote, do we? Hell no, and doing this to the NRA isn't going to help them with the problems they are experiencing/creating.

First thing I can think of is for the NRA to have liasons with organizations like GCO. They MUST be able to collaborate with folks on the state level before they start putting their messy fingers in our pie. There has to be more communication so we aren't fighting each other.

:righton: