search
top

NRA Annual Meeting

John Frazer NRAAM 2016

Here we are  is the whole reason all this exists, the 145th Annual Meeting of Members. I feel bad I got a picture of John Frazer, who I didn’t realize was Secretary, looking a bit like a deer in the headlights taking the roll. Photographing people speaking is a dark art which I have no mastery of.

First off I’m glad they remembered to recognize foreign members of NRA in attendance. Several years ago a British member put that resolution on the floor and the members voted in favor. More often than not they’ve forgotten to do it.

We always start the Annual Meeting of Members with what I think is one of NRA’s great traditions; recognizing the youngest and oldest Life Member in attendance. This year the youngest was an 8 week old whose family is from Chicago. The oldest was a 99 year old man from Fort Smith, Arkansas. Part of this great tradition involves Wayne flubbing the whole thing, while his admin Millie runs around trying to straighten everything out.

I was amused though during the part of Wayne’s speech where he’s touting NRA’s diversity, but the fact is the room is pretty white bread, and it took a while for the cameras panning the crowd to actually find some… err… diversity. I’m sure the media is going to have fun with that one. Other than that, Wayne’s Speech is mostly about elite hatin’. He went full populist. Never go full populist!

Pete Brownell is now first VP, which means he’ll be next President of the NRA after Allan Cors term expires next year. He introduces Chris Cox. Chris’s speech could be summed up with this quote, while talking about the Supreme Court: “The Second Amendment is on the ballot in November.” During Chris’s speech he recognizes a number of individuals, including Josephine Byrd, who was the plaintiff on the NRA’s case against the Wilmington Housing Authority who banned residents from owning firearms.

Now, onto the Board Election results. Previously I had been confused about Ted Nugent placing 18th, not noticing the list was alphabetical. My bad. My faith in humanity was briefly restored. This year 164,026 ballots were cast. 3,282 ballots were declared invalid. Oliver North and Ted Nugent were the top vote getters by far, with North getting 128,099 votes, and Nugent getting 124,471 votes. Sandy Froman, third on the list, got 109,369 votes.

The bottom vote getter was Tom King, at 71,473 votes. We’ve endorsed Tom in the past. Sadly the SAFE Act is murdering the gun culture in the Empire State, and much like Californians, New Yorkers seeking the Board are going to have an uphill climb. There is no justice in this world, given the amount good board members who didn’t make it this year. A lot of good people didn’t make it this year, like Graham Hill, my vote for 76th Board Member. I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again, there are too damned many celebrities on the NRA Board.

I am happy to report that Grover Norquist recall failed 70,204 no votes to 62,066 yes votes, so Glenn Beck can take those results and shove them up his crazy ass.

So good news and bad news. The good news is that participation in NRA elections is up sharply, but I think that might also be the bad news!

I was hoping this year, in this Era of Trump, there might be some damned fool, but entertaining thing put out on the floor, but it was not to be. The meeting adjourned uneventfully.

24 Responses to “NRA Annual Meeting”

  1. Joe says:

    I had been following the posts pertaining to Donald Trump, his endorsement from the NRA, and the reactions pertaining to those topics, and in following this post, the NRA board elections as well. I need to make this clear pertaining to Trump…….Sebastian and several other comment posters on this Blog can’t seem to see the forest for the trees.

    I’ve noticed disdain, contempt, and sentiments that disavow Trump and his endorsement from the NRA. This 2016 election goes beyond the scope of just the 2nd Amendment, but rather the primary, universal notion that our country was founded on…..individual self preservation and sovereignty. Trump may not be the ideal candidate, even in my eyes, but we must take a look at America’s future by observing the rest of the world to see what Hillary Clinton embraces.

    Venezuela is turning into a Latin American version of Somalia, and Mexico is slowly going down that exact path, Europe is no more than a half-decade away from becoming a war zone , and about 30 years from becoming a collective colony of Islam, and Japan’s population demographics are giving way to them turning into nothing more than an aging and dying society.

    People (including those on this blog) don’t seem to understand that this is the future of America if Hillary Clinton is elected President. It is a truth and reality that will bring about the death, and nail in the coffin of America based upon it’s founding principles and physical existence as a nation-state.

    Donald Trump is being called a racist, fascist, xenophobe, Nazi, etc etc etc….. But yet, he only speaks the truth that foreign nationals residing in the U.S. illegally have no protections with our freedoms because they aren’t citizens, and they don’t have a birthright to U.S. Citizenship just because they are brown and speak Spanish and/or because they are Muslims. If Hillary is elected, amnesty will be granted to 30 to 40 million illiterate, illegal, third-world, foreign nationals residing in this country, and all of you principle thumping fools can kiss elections, democracy, and republicanism goodbye!!! Unit behind Trump, or its definitely over. Not only will your 2nd Amendment be gone, but your Nation State will be gone too.

    • Roger Wilson says:

      Hear, hear, there are two choices Trump or Hillery. Stay home, Hillery wins. If Hillery win it will be the last time you vote will count. Simply put, If Hillery wins, those millions of illegals will gain the vote.

      • Joseph says:

        You can mock me all you want, but just look to the regions of the world i mentioned, and you will see Anerica’s future if Hillary wins.

    • Whetherman says:

      ” foreign nationals residing in the U.S. illegally have no protections with our freedoms because they aren’t citizens”

      Please apprise us of that section of the constitution that specifies that the rights guaranteed therein only apply to citizens. I can see citizenship referenced only with regard to things like qualifying for public office, or the interactions of the citizens of different states, with the acknowledgments of rights referring only to “the people,” or, to no particular category of person at all.

      Also, for those who regard the rights acknowledged in the constitution as “God given,” does that imply that God only recognizes rights as belonging to U.S. citizens?

      • Joseph says:

        The 14th Amendment mentions “under the jurisdiction thereof”. This pertains to those born in the U.S.A..To be “under the jurisdiction thereof” if your are born in the U.S., your parents must be U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment nationalized and reaffirmed the 10 amendmendts of the Bill of Rights specifically to U.S. citizens, not to foreign nations, nation states, and foreign nationals residing here illegally. Take your globalist BS elsewhere.

        • Sebastian says:

          Constitutional rights do not apply only to citizens. The right to free speech applies to everyone under US jurisdiction. Visiting tourists still have a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. They still have a right to trial by jury, a right to not incriminate themselves, a right to peacefully assemble, and to practice their religion. That is the law.

          All the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment requires is that you be born in the Untied States. The clause you mention was a replacement for two clauses “not subject to any foreign power” and “Indians not taxed.” It was intended to mean that children of foreign ministers, diplomats, and Indian nations, were not citizens by birth. The framers of the 14th Amendment argued that children born in the US to foreign nationals were still citizens. Even people who believed Chinese immigrants should be excluded from birthright citizenship believed it still applied to Europeans.

          • Joseph says:

            That is not the case at all!! The writers of the 14th amendment, especially senator Jacob Howard specifically said the children of illegal aliens aren’t protected under the 14th amendment. “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

            Senator Jacob Howard and the other writers, advocates, and supporters understood that anchor babies would be used for nothing more than subverting US sovereignty as a nation state.

            • Sebastian says:

              From the debates on the 14th Amendment, from Senator Howard. Emphasis Mine:

              “Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

              You combine that, which isn’t abundantly clear, with some of Senator Trumbull’s comments:

              Mr. Cowan: “I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?”
              Mr. Trumbull: “Undoubtedly.”
              Mr. Trumbull: “I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?”
              Mr. Cowan: “I think not.”
              Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”
              Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”
              Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”

              I’ve read a lot of the originalist arguments against birthright citizenship, but I’m not all that convinced. I agree there’s an argument there, especially if you do research on original public meaning. But it seems pretty clear they intended anyone born in the US, except for diplomat children, to be natural citizens.

              • Joseph says:

                Once the amendment was adopted, through my own research into the topic, the majority intent was to only grant citizenship to the children of parents who were/are legal U.S. citizens. The debate continued on past this point that you sight, and Benjamin Wade of Ohio made strong efforts to convince, and did so successfully convince a majority of our politicians that the 14th amendment only pertain to US citizens and the born children of US citizens the clauses of equal protections. Ask yourself…..if the citizens of the world can have their children here, and hijack themselves citizenship, and pass it on to their foreign family members, is our country a nation state, or a nomadic zone for foreigners to run rough shot and lawless? To have equal protections, you must be a citizen with and of the jurisdiction of citizenship.

        • Whetherman says:

          So, it was undefined who the rights defined in the previous 13 amendments belonged to, until the 14th Amendment was written? And no one in the United States who is not a citizen, is “under U.S. jurisdiction,” and thus for example, can do anything they please because U.S. authorities have no jurisdiction over them?

          I thought that latter situation only applied to diplomats, who by definition are not under U.S. authority, and thus have “diplomatic immunity.”

          And since I’m a U.S. citizen, I must say, take your populist/fascist BS elsewhere. You are demonstrating precisely why we can’t allow a Trump to appoint our SCOTUS Justices for us, who just might entertain your nonsensical constitutional blather.

          • Joseph says:

            Before some ignorant, pompous pig like yourself call me a fascist, take a look in the mirror!! Fascism and communism are the same things with different techniques and means of executing their totalitarianism, and are both globalist to the core!! I have ancestors who escaped the former Soviet Union and I am not interested in Comrade Hillary Clinton resuurecting it here!

            • Whetherman says:

              “Before some ignorant, pompous pig like yourself. . .”

              Sez the genius who called someone a “globalist” because they disagreed with him about who was protected by the constitution.

              Letting people like you have free run with your nonsense opinions is what put us in the position of having a Trump for a major party candidate.

              As I’ve said before, you people are too easy. It takes only a handful of words to get you to show where you’re coming from. Keep it up, and maybe you’ll wake up a few more decent gun owners as to what is dragging us down.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      The Second Amendment survived and in fact thrived with Obama. We will be fine with Clinton.

      We will not be fine with Trump. All of the fears you posted about Clinton applies to Trump. He is an authoritarian just in a different vein than Clinton. And with Trump the right will not fight. He will drag squishy Republicans along to destroy the Second Amendment.

      Neither is fit, and neither should be supported.

      • Whetherman says:

        “He is an authoritarian just in a different vein than Clinton.”

        Exactly! What a different game we’d be in if people would just realize there is no “left” or “right,” there is only “Authoritarian” and “Anti-Authoritarian.”

      • BC says:

        I’m not so sanguine that we’ll be fine with Clinton, if for no other reason than she’s going to pick another orthodox leftist hack, like Kagan and Sotomayor, to fill Scalia’s seat — plus the 2-3 other SCOTUS seats likely to open up in the next four years. At best that means Heller and McDonald limited to their specific facts; at worst, those decisions will be reconsidered and overturned.

        That all said, it’s unavoidable now.

    • BC says:

      People (including those on this blog) don’t seem to understand that this is the future of America if Hillary Clinton is elected President. It is a truth and reality that will bring about the death, and nail in the coffin of America based upon it’s founding principles and physical existence as a nation-state.

      As I said before: the “BUT HILLARY!” handwringing is, at this point, whistling past the graveyard. The election, and SCOTUS, were lost the moment Trump became the presumptive nominee. I, too, am genuinely concerned about the future of the country under a Hillary presidency — but unfortunately people like us were outvoted in the primary by morons who don’t regard “electability” as a particularly important consideration when selecting a presidential candidate.

      So now we’re stuck with Trump, and you’ll have to forgive me if I’m not interested in wasting time, energy, money, and my vote supporting his doomed candidacy. I suggest you spend the time between now and next January, when Madame President is inaugurated, making peace with the loss of your Second Amendment rights, and be sure to thank the Trumpkins.

      • Sebastian says:

        The polls seem to show Trump has a chance now.

        • BC says:

          Not really. National polls have narrowed a bit as Republican voters have coalesced around Trump, while the Democratic primary is still underway. But state-level polling is terrible for Trump: he’s not materially expanding the map and putting any of the Obama states in play, and he’s getting creamed in Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, which are all states that he must carry in order to win. On top of that he has no real campaign organization to speak of, no data or voter targeting operation.

          He’s probably going to stay within a few points of Hillary in national polling through the summer, and might actually jump out to a narrow lead in here and there, but it’s illusory. He’s going to lose, hard.

  2. Countertop says:

    Can’t believe Graham didn’t make it. That’s a missed opportunity by the NRA membership. Hope he gets on next year.

  3. Reader says:

    Back on topic. I think Sebastian used a very good photo for this post. It is excellent to see the NRA represented by young faces like John Frazer! (Young but very experienced)

  4. Kirk Parker says:

    Ummm, what’s to like about Grover Norquist?

    Or do you just dislike recalls on principle? Or something specific about this recall?

    • Whetherman says:

      “Or do you just dislike recalls on principle?”

      I assume you’re asking Sebastian, and of course I can’t answer for him. But my opinion is, Grover Norquist may suck, but this recall was based on a totally loony premise, that required rejection of that premise, lest we look like an organization made up in the majority by wackadoodles. If someone had made and presented a rational reason why he should not be a director, I would have voted for his recall if I was persuaded. But, nothing like that was in play.

top