Judging by the NRA Board members I have known personally over the years, there is an increasing 'disconnect' between what 'the sense of the Board' may be and what the paid staff may actually do. If the Board is actually 'relevant' in making those decisions - and again, any information I have is 'as told to me' - they would be privy to more 'inside' information than they are allegedly receiving, and be more involved in 'setting policy' than in 'making recommendations'.

The obvious - the near-universal complaint that the organization should be more 'hard-line' - has led many long-time members to conclude that the nominating committee, as well as the organization itself, has 'gone Washington': More interested in the politics of politics, 'going along to get along' than in bringing the actual weight of the near five million members to the negotiating table. 'Political realities' may be convoluted, but when they include crawling into bed with rabid anti-gunners, as on the 'Veterans Disarmament Bill' rather than fighting at least the worst features of it tooth and nail, one has to question what part the Board is given in policy making, or if they actually represent the will of the membership - I'm sure we all recall the kick in the teeth we got from retired Texas Ranger Joaquin Jackson's televised comments on 'black rifles'.

If the NRA Board of Directors actually does 'represent' us, it is incumbent on us to elect a board that does. If the Board is just 'window dressing' and the paid staff - who has consistantly talked a better game than it played - are the ones who determine policy regardless of the will of the Board, then the fraud needs to be exposed.

Duke, you're correct that there is a disconnect between what the paid staff does and what the Board directs.

But history shows that where a hard line Board supports and directs staff, they do better. The best example I can cite is the fight leading up to the 1994 Clinton ban. Tanya Metaksa, then head of ILA, was under tremendous pressure to cut a deal on the ban that would supposedly make it less onerous (not sure how that would have worked, bayonet lugs permitted, but no flash hiders? 12-round mags rather than 10-round?). Had that happened, the sunset bone would never have been thrown to us and there never would have been any thought of repeal, since "the gun lobby" was at the table and agreed to it. We'd be living with short magazines and "thumbhole" stocks to this day with little hope of ever seeing them go away.

Only with the support of a strong Board could Tanya overrule the calls from inside NRA and out (especially from the Republican leadership) to pull a seat up to the table and cut a deal.

The reason the board is so large, according to my dad, is to weaken the board's control over the staff. I don't know when it grew so large, but the size so dilutes any single Director's voice that it's just not worth the fight to go against the grain. Being a big group also makes it more prone to the in-fighting that we've seen through the years.

Finally, the board is assuredly NOT window dressing, although staff would like to make it so. The board has explicit fiduciary responsibility for the operation of the Association. The Directors ignore their fiduciary roles at their own peril. If something goes really bad, they have legal liability. Staff gets a pass -- they are directed by the board.

Intentional or not, your post reinforces my argument: If the size of the Board dilutes the influence of any member or bloc, logic would dictate that strengthening that bloc - in this case, by electing more 'hard-liners' (presuming, of course, that we - or they - can agree on one definition of the term). Given the greater influence a larger 'hard core' percentage of the board would wield, our enemies would find themselves dealing with a more 'united' front: Rather than perceiving organizations like GOA and JPFO as the 'no compromise' - and less 'tractable' - opposition and the NRA as 'weak and flexible', they would be dealing with an organization internally strong enough to demand true compromise, rather than one with a perceived history of concession to all but their most outrageous restrictions.

Further, with a majority of the board putting principle above politics, the ILA - our 'political activist' arm - could do more than (again, dealing in 'perception', and to most, perception is reality) merely 'endorse' candidates in the face of the storm of liberal media hype, it could take a more active part in promoting their candidacy and exposing the opposition. Given a more active - and activist - role, it would also increase funding (at least for such efforts), as again, it would be perceived as a political and electoral force to be reckoned with, rather than a barely relevant one in the electoral arena.

Unfortunately, Duke, I'm in violent and total agreement with you. To get a hard-line board majority it takes running a slate, establishing a presence and making waves. It's a process that takes years, and we haven't laid the groundwork.

The best effect we can have on this election is to perhaps keep some marginal, or maybe even a bad candidate or two, off the board. Some of the guys running are pretty good, from my viewpoint, and we'll get into that. But as you well know sometimes it's good to make a statement not to win, but because it's the right thing to do.

In my humble opinion, The NRA has strayed from the goals of the protection of the 2A, they are giving lip service to it but I cannot help but think as a whole the members are not that satisfied with the status quo. There is a common rumbling that "I don't like everything they are and have done but they are the biggest Lobbying Group we have to protect our guns"! So we have to stand by them, I agree to this point if theyare not working effectivlly, then there should be some alteration preformed and the membership needs to feel they have some say in what is being done, I personally have contacte them with complaints and have yet to get a reply of any kind, not even the acknowlegdement of reciept of the letter!

I would like to see and hear a much more positive response to any such Question, The NRA has been a strong advocate for the Target, Competition, shooters and of course the Hunters, Not so strong for the Personal Protection, and the right to carry Concealed, My personal point of disagreement came when in my opinion the NRA Threw he Veterans under the bus over the expanded NICS Compromise, with the Anti gun crowed.

Going to try this again (or what I remember): Wrote this last week, but it disappeared between 'Preview' and 'Submit'.

The size of a 'governing body' is less important than its principles - if the majority of the active membership is of a certain position, it is illogical to assume that they're sanguine with a 'leadership' that fails to reflect such position. If the 'activists' in the NRA are 'hard-liners', common sense (a commodity in limited supply) should dictate they elect a Board that mirrors that position. Unfortunately, there are two alternatives: Either bring in those who agree with you and take over, or throw up your hands proclaiming 'they don't represent me' and pull a 'rats leaving a sinking ship'.

Perception being what it is, a clarification may be in order: There is a huge difference between 'hard-line' and 'no compromise. It's a political issue, and politics is 'the art of compromise'. What a 'hard-line' leadership would accomplish is a more equitable 'compromise' with the forces of darkness, rather than what 'the membership' sees as 'concession'. Telling us that 'it was the best we could do' is fertilizer of bovine origin when there is no indication that you fought for anything better.

What this has to do with this - or any other year's - NRA elections? This forum has some influence in the firearms community, and its membership has a network of contacts throughout this segment of the populace. We know who stands where, and therein lies a source of our potential strength. There are 'lesser known' advocates of our rights who don't believe in 'politics as usual' and 'going along to get along'. The NRA has provision for candidates to be nominated by petition, and we certainly have enough of those contacts to not merely nominate a candidate here and another there, but to put together an entire slate. Some of the 'nom-comm approved' candidates do stand with us - there is no reason we shouldn't endorse them on our slate. The questionnaire in another thread is a good tool - lest we forget, one of our Directors is Texas Ranger legend Joaquin Jackson, who seemed ideal - until he embarrassed himself and us on national television. How would he have looked to prospective voters if that position had come out before he was elected?

And our enemies - insofar as they comprehend the term - have more respect for those they can't bully. They've shown they're willing to concede a little now, because some time down the road, we'll have a weak 'representation' they can roll right over, getting all that and more back. Anyone recall "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom"? Much of the gun rights movement 'went to sleep' in 2000 - we had a 'Republican' President and Legislature, so we were 'safe'. You see where that got us today.

The NRA isn't the only national rights organization, but it's the 800-lb. gorilla in the room because of its size. We need the others, including the 'no compromise' groups - the forces of evil would rather deal with us than with them, but its up to us to guaranty that we - through our governing board - represent all firearms owners, not just 'golfers with guns', and more important, the Constitution. Either we put up a board that will do what needs to be done - and 'we the People' are the ones who must do it - or we're superfluous, rearranging deck chairs, as it were, on the Titanic.