search
top

Where’s It Going?

Both David Codrea, a commenter from a few days ago, and myself, in the past, actually, have used this form to submit a comment to NRA and never gotten a response.  Anyone else out there not gotten an answer when they’ve used this form?

Leave your experience in the comments.  I know people at NRA read this blog, and I’ll make sure they see it.

38 Responses to “Where’s It Going?”

  1. I used the same form on Dec. 14th, and have not gotten a reply. I’m a bit more than halfway through paying on a lifetime membership.

  2. Ryan Horsley says:

    I received the following after I sent mine to the membership division:
    https://www.nrahq.org/contact.asp

    Thank you for contacting the NRA Membership division.
    I have forwarded this to the NRA-ILA for review.
    Thank you very much for your support and please feel free to contact us
    if you ever need anything else!
    Best Regards,
    Morgan
    NRA Member Communications
    11250 Waples Mill Road
    Fairfax, VA 22030
    http://www.nra.org
    E-mail: membership@nrahq.org
    Phone: 1(800)672-3888
    P.S. If you need to contact us again concerning this, please make sure you include
    this and any previous correspondence. Some Internet Providers, such as AOL for example,
    automatically cut out previous messages when you reply to a message.
    This will help insure a quick answer to your inquiry.

  3. James says:

    I used this form once, and I didn’t get a response. It’s possible that they have some tech issues with it or something, since I have got responses from inquiries on the NRA HQ contact page. Interestingly, I never got a response to some inquiries over at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership.

  4. Sebastian says:

    I’m thinking either the form is going off into the bit bucket or someone’s not checking a queue they are supposed to. Either way, they need to fix the problem. You can’t just ignore membership.

  5. straightarrow says:

    Maybe you can’t or I can’t ignore membership but NRA does it all the time.

    reference the Sullivan nomination as only one example.

    Life members are at a disadvantage to other members, because the NRA already has their membership dues with no more expected. A life member can quit and not harm their financial bottom line, except for whatever effects there are on voluntary contributions. Hence, they are more readily ignored with a decreased downside as compared to members who pay dues yearly, when they leave they take their checkbooks with them.

  6. chris horton says:

    I’ve used it a number of times and have never gotten any response at all. Like I said over at WoG, I’m less and less concerned I let my membership lapse.

  7. I did once get an answer to a message I sent on that form. Back when Ron Paul was running for reelection for his congressional seat, and the NRA gave his competition a higher grade than they gave Dr. Paul, I used that form to express my displeasure, and they replied. The reply wasn’t particularly satisfying, but I did get one.

  8. Sailorcurt says:

    Either way, they need to fix the problem. You can’t just ignore membership.

    Ahhhh Haaa Haa Hahahahaha

    Thanks Sebastian…that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

    The NRA has been ignoring membership concerns for at least the 20 years that I’ve been a member.

    One example among many: I once caught them in the same type of…um…exaggeration…that the Brady campaign uses (and the GOA is engaging in right now) wherein they breathlessly misstated the intent and purpose of proposed legislation in order to raise the ire (and money) of their membership. I called them on it and informed them that when they engage in the same tactics as the Brady’s it destroys their credibility and makes it harder for us rank and file 2A supporters to convince the undecided.

    They responded back with a snide dismissal that didn’t address or even attempt to counter any of the evidence I presented or points I made. I replied back that they may as well not send me those types of solicitations because they are wasting their resources if they are expecting to convince me to donate by lying to me…I’m just not that gullible. Their response? “Thanks for saving us money by requesting to be removed from our mailing list.”

    I’ve never asked to be put back on it so, to this day, I don’t get their solicitations, even though I’ve been a member for about 20 years, a life member for 5 of those 20 years and I still get “America’s First Freedom” magazine and some of their third party promotional advertising.

    The NRA bureaucracy is no better than any (and worse than some) large organization. They have an agenda and will do virtually anything to achieve their goals. That is the bottom line. If they consider it to be in their best political interests to ignore the concerns of (a minority of) their membership…they will HAPPILY “just ignore membership.”

  9. Sailorcurt says:

    By the way, being ignored doesn’t stop me from continuing to give them feedback, I have submitted comments regarding the Sullivan confirmation at least three times using different means (including the form you linked to) and have received responses to none of them…well, I may have received one of those automated “thank you for your input” type responses, I simply don’t remember…those don’t count as far as a “response” and I just delete them.

  10. Wade Jensen says:

    Dear Sebastian,

    I have commented recently, and have not received a reply. Sadly, I had not expected one either.

    Regards,

    PolyKahr

  11. Sebastian says:

    One example among many: I once caught them in the same type of…um…exaggeration…that the Brady campaign uses (and the GOA is engaging in right now) wherein they breathlessly misstated the intent and purpose of proposed legislation in order to raise the ire (and money) of their membership. I called them on it and informed them that when they engage in the same tactics as the Brady’s it destroys their credibility and makes it harder for us rank and file 2A supporters to convince the undecided.

    Which bill did they do this on? To some degree, all groups whip up fear over bills, and exaggerate the threat in order to raise money. I’ve seen NRA do it too. I think this goes beyond scaring membership for fund raising purposes with what GOA is doing on HR2640.

  12. Sailorcurt says:

    I honestly don’t remember. It was a few years ago. I know I blogged about it but it would have been under my old blog which I lost through a catastrophic (self-induced) blogger mishap.

    If I remember correctly, it was regarding state level legislation in Ohio which the NRA opposed…and I agreed with their opposition, but the false claims they were making about the terms and effects of the bill were being used (effectively) by the anti-gun forces to write off all opposition as hyperbole and hysteria-mongering.

    I’ve also corresponded with them regarding various and sundry subjects like their refusal to acknowledge the SAF’s involvement in the New Orleans gun confiscation lawsuits, past support (which now seems to be waning) for “gun free school zones”, support for “project exile”, and many many more…on the rare occasion that I’ve received responses (which seem to be more and more rare in the past couple of years), the responses have been defensive, condescending and dismissive of my concerns. They always seemed to be saying “how DARE you question US?”

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m a supporter of the NRA, they do some very good things for gun owners and are undoubtedly the most effective 2A lobbying group in the country. I recommend that every gun owner in America pony up and join. That doesn’t mean I’m going to drink the kool-aid and accept everything they do without question. I don’t always agree with their policies, activities or positions and, when I disagree, I’m going to let them (and anyone else who cares to listen) know about it. In that light, as many good things as I can say about the NRA, “responsive to member’s concerns” is NOT one of them.

    By the way, I agree with you about GOA’s recent antics (I dropped my membership with them long ago because of these types of tirades)…they are treating the NRA as an enemy, not as an ally that they happen to disagree with. I was only drawing attention to the fact that making misleading statements about the contents and intent of proposed legislation is not a unique phenomenon.

  13. Jacob says:

    Two things. First, NRA has 4 million members which likely generate hundreds if not thousands of e-mails daily. It is not reasonable to expect a personal response to every query. Second, David Codrea has a well established reputation built largely upon bashing the NRA. If you try following his lead on something don’t expect a response.

  14. Second, David Codrea has a well established reputation built largely upon bashing the NRA.

    David Codrea also has a reputation built largely on superbly written gun rights advocacy. If pointing out the NRA’s endorsement of anti-gun politicians, its support of laws that infringe on that which shall not be infringed, etc., is “bashing” the NRA, I’d say the NRA brought some bashing on itself.

  15. Jacob says:

    Kurt, the only people who think that don’t know any better.

  16. I’ll certainly never be accused of being all-knowing, but until someone shows me the errors in my thinking, I’ll stand behind my statements.

  17. Sailorcurt says:

    It is not reasonable to expect a personal response to every query.

    Granted…however, is it too much to expect the largest gun rights organization in the country to have at least CONSIDERED the issues of the day? If that is not too much to expect, then is it too much to expect them to have at least formulated a form letter outlining their positions and reasoning with which to respond to such inquiries?

    Kurt, the only people who think that don’t know any better.

    Ahh, dismissal and disdain. The typical non-response of the arrogant koolaid drinker. “If you don’t agree with ME, well, you just aren’t smart enough to understand…”

    Jacob, if you are incapable of formulating an argument better than that, you’ll have to forgive me for taking your position (and credibility) with a grain of salt.

  18. Jacob says:

    Curt, you’re right. I made a mistake. I should have said the only people who think that either don’t know any better or who don’t want to know any better. I’m well aware of Codrea’s fanboys, of which you are one.

  19. Ah . . . now I see. Jacob has been intoCodrea-bashing for almost two years.

    That means, of course, that anyone who agrees with David about anything can be dismissed as an ignorant “Codrea fanboy.”

    I’ll answer to that a lot more happily than to an accusation of being a LaPierre fanboy.

  20. Sebastian says:

    Jacob:

    I don’t disagree that NRA probably gets too many e-mails to personalize every single response, but even senators of large states like TX and California still at least manage to respond. NRA is aware of the Sullivan issue, and they should have a statement on it they can reply back with without too much effort, I would think. I’m willing to accept they have more e-mails than staff to handle it, but I think communication with members has to be paramount.

    And regardless of what NRA may think of David, he’s still a life member, and I think still deserving of a response.

  21. Ryan Horsley says:

    Back to Sebastian’s post, David Codrea (who is a NRA Life Member) and others are simply asking the NRA to oppose Sullivan’s confirmation or to urge Senators to oppose him.

  22. Sebastian says:

    Yes, and that deserves a response. The issue here isn’t about David anyway, it’s about the NRA needing to not ignore membership. I can promise you, whoever is supposed to be processing correspondence with members, in all likelihood, doesn’t know you, me, or David Codrea from Adam.

  23. Jacob says:

    Kurt, I remember that incident. Thank you for proving my point.

  24. Sebastian, my apologies for letting myself be baited into being part of the reason this comment thread was derailed on a silly tangent.

    If the NRA is too busy to answer correspondence received on their contact form (which perhaps begs the question of why have a contact form), is there perhaps a better, more direct way of making contact?

  25. Jacob says:

    Sebastian, Senators send out bulk mail responses to whomever contacts their office on particular issues. It’s rare to get a personalized letter. I don’t know how their e-mail gets sorted, and maybe NRA should set up an autoresponder which sends out a canned “Thank you for contacting NRA … blah, blah, blah.” What I suspect happens is they do much like legislators do and have their staff simply tally up a list of people who contact them on a particular issue and pass it up the food chain every so often with a small sample of the e-mails. So, for example, Chis Cox might be told x number of people have contacted ILA on Sullivan, y number of people are unhappy about it, and here are 2-3 sample e-mails from members. That is what most state and federal legislators do.

  26. straightarrow says:

    I’m not sure the NRA isn’t the enemy. The things they have done that caused me to quit them and the things they have done since, all have aided in further restricting my 2A rights.

    Unless the definition of the word enemy has changed, I must at least consider the possibility that they are.

  27. Sebastian says:

    I don’t know what the best method of contact is, to be honest, and I’m not sure that’s really something I am that concerned about. Any method they suggest should work, especially a web form or published e-mail address. This may be a case of a technological problem with electronic correspondence. Either the form isn’t working, the box doesn’t have sufficient spam protections, and membership stuff gets lost in the noise, or it’s dumping the responses off into a box that someone is supposed to be watching, but isn’t.

    Either way, there’s no better way to generate ill will than ignoring membership concerns. I think a lot of folks who could agree to disagree, when there are disagreements, are outright offended to just be ignored… as we can see here.

    This is a problem that needs fixing.

  28. Sebastian says:

    Jabob:

    I’m not really asking for very personalized e-mails. I would understand if they are giving a stock response like senators do. They do have a lot of members and will have to deal with a lot of correspondence, but these folks aren’t getting anything back on the topic they’ve responded to them about. I think they can expect at least a response.

  29. Jacob says:

    It is my belief that if you want more personal contact with NRA staff and Board members to have serious discussions on legislative and political policy, you have to move yourself up the political food chain. This does not mean your opinion does not matter. It is recognition that, as with legislators and their constituents, NRA realizes that the bulk of the membership do not understand politics beyond Schoolhouse Rock.

    WRT Sullivan, it is safe to assume that NRA isn’t particularly happy with him and that they’ve made their feelings known to Congress. It is also a safe bet that Sullivan’s nomination came about in the first place for any number of political reasons, is probably connected to lots of other things, and messing with it could lead to who knows what. It is entirely possible that if NRA makes any public statement here and now that would be very bad. Seriously, how many people who read this post thought all that through and could contribute something other than simply stating your personal opposition to Sullivan? Do you really need to call up Chris and Wayne just for that? No. Should NRA put a vague statement somewhere on their webpage saying they are aware of the issue? Probably, but they’ve never been very good as using the internet as a communications tool. However, nobody should feel ignored because they don’t receive even a canned response back.

  30. Sebastian says:

    I’ve gotten a response back. The form is indeed broken and is sending responses to the bit bucket. See my latest post linked in the traceback above.

  31. Sailorcurt says:

    Thanks for looking into it Sebastian.

    Jacob:

    It is safe to assume that aliens have possessed the body of Wayne LaPierre and that’s why he’s completely contradicted himself on gun free school zones. It’s also a safe bet that the NRA is in league with the Knights Templar who are a front organization for the Grand Order of Masons which is closely affiliated with the Brotherhood of the Totalitarian Dictators and are plotting to enslave us all which is why they ignore our concerns.

    Based upon the reams of support and documentation you have provided in this thread to back up your assertions, my assumptions and “safe bets” seem to be based upon exactly the same quality and quantity of evidence as yours and are, therefore, just as reliable.

    I’m well aware of Codrea’s fanboys, of which you are one.

    You seem to have a penchant for assumptions. Not exactly a quality that I look for when evaluating the credibility of a source.

    I don’t even read David’s blog any more because he was beginning to piss me off and I was having urges to leave derogatory comments on his blog…you know, infer that he’s ignorant or call him a “fanboy” of someone or another.

    Being that we’re all supposed to be on the same side, I didn’t think that was a good idea so I just stopped reading him.

    Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is possible to support an organization, approve of their overall goals and be appreciative of the good that they accomplish without having to swear fealty to them. If that’s how you want to approach the world, be my guest. May the chains rest lightly upon you.

    Sorry Sebastian. I couldn’t help myself.

  32. Jacob says:

    My assumptions are based upon personal experience. I do much of the legislative and political stuff for our SRA. That is why I can say these things are not a simple matter and why you shouldn’t have unrealistic expectations when contacting NRA or any other large special interest group like them.

    As for NRA, I hardly suggest anyone swear fealty to them. They’ve made dumbass mistakes and done their share of stupid shit and will continue to do so. That is to be expected. Unfortunately there is an element which thinks that they can get ahead by beating on NRA for any or no reason and the internet gives them much more notoriety and creditability than ever before. David Codrea is one of those, Larry Pratt is another.

  33. Sebastian says:

    OK folks, I don’t think we’re really accomplishing anything further on the topic at hand at this point. I’m not really that comfortable with my comment section being used to bad mouth other gun bloggers.

    I’ve had my disagreements with David and other pro-gun bloggers from time to time, but yes, we are all on the same side. I’d prefer we not make these disagreements personal.

  34. I’ve had my disagreements with David and other pro-gun bloggers from time to time, but yes, we are all on the same side. I’d prefer we not make these disagreements personal.

    I tend to disagree with you from time to time, but I’ve never had any trouble respecting your intelligence, honor, and commitment to gun rights. I wish I could say the same about everyone who is ostensibly on our side.

  35. Sailorcurt says:

    I tend to disagree with you from time to time, but I’ve never had any trouble respecting your intelligence, honor, and commitment to gun rights.

    Hear Hear.

    I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone in my life that I agree with on everything. But I try to keep things in perspective; I realize that I am not infallible and try not to imply (or state explicitly for that matter) that the only POSSIBLE reason that someone might disagree with me is because they are ignorant.

    And my comment was not intended as in insult to David, only as an illustration that Mr. Jacob’s assumptions are somewhat less than prescient. Even though I feel David has gotten a bit too vitriolic of late and I’ve chosen to stop reading his blog, I have never doubted his sincerity or dedication.

    For that matter, I don’t doubt Jacob’s sincerity or dedication, I only doubt his seemingly blind defense of the NRA’s less laudable traits, his immediate devolution into condescension toward those who would deign to disagree with him and his unsupported assertions and assumptions. Those particular techniques are not elements of debate, they are examples of sophistry and have no place amongst ostensible allies.

    You just don’t win many people over to your side of an argument by being an asshole. Sorry, but that’s just the fact.

  36. Ryan Horsley says:

    I agree with Sebastian and Kurt; I also want to add that David Codrea is the first to side with people such as Fincher, Len Savage, myself and others. He’s not testing the waters or seeing if it is politically correct, he’s just there.

  37. I also want to add that David Codrea is the first to side with people such as Fincher, Len Savage, myself and others. He’s not testing the waters or seeing if it is politically correct, he’s just there.

    There is much to admire in David Codrea, but that, for me, is probably the most important.

  38. chris horton says:

    I’ll agree with all that as well,despite his looks. Yuck!!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » NRA Response on Contact Form - [...] got a response from NRA regarding the member form: Per this post:  http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=2253, let me both thank you and…
top