-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Nevada Firearms Coalition Progress ?
- Thread starter gonefishn
- Start date
wrightme
Regular Member
Wow, you sure are contrary. Something got a burr in your shoe?
Yup, you two guys trying to play silly games with me. It wont work.
varminter22
Regular Member
Thanks, Ken.
I did do a cursory search, but haven't yet found the specific code to which you refer. Was hoping you could help as I'm trying to educate myself. I am somewhat familiar with NRS Ch 81 & 82, but not very familiar with the code to which you refer.
I simply quoted the EHow note in the link provided.
I have seen the Nevada non-profit incorporation doc, but haven't had reason (until now) to want to see the federal docs.
wrightme
Regular Member
No, not a bit! It isn't a silly game. You act as if you are working against the new organization. You may not be, but that is how you are coming across.
And, I know varminter personally, and have worked with him in our SFA legislative efforts. He is about as straight of a shooter as there is in Nevada for gun rights and working towards improving them. HE does not deserve the attitude some in here are presenting.
Larry, the findlaw link above links to the relevant us code.
Last edited:
Larry, since you seemed to know all about the differences between a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4 (your post in response to my question about deductibility of donations) I thought you were all over this stuff. You might want to read IRS publication 557 (you can find it on line with google). It has the answers to most things non-profit.
I have also appreciated Larry's work in the legislative arena and I also know him to be a straight shooter. I would feel very badly if his good intentions were being abused.
As to your attitude that anyone who asks a legitimate question has bad intentions and is "working against the new organization," that is just bogus.
Your repeated responses impugning the intentions of everyone who dares raise an issue are unfortunate. Things like this:
Sending us to a web-site with virtually no information and telling us to use the contact page there, which seems to be totally unresponsive, to get answers is poor form.
If the NVFAC is to survive, let alone succeed, then IMO they need better supporters and spokesmen then you.
Ken
I have also appreciated Larry's work in the legislative arena and I also know him to be a straight shooter. I would feel very badly if his good intentions were being abused.
As to your attitude that anyone who asks a legitimate question has bad intentions and is "working against the new organization," that is just bogus.
Your repeated responses impugning the intentions of everyone who dares raise an issue are unfortunate. Things like this:
are poor form.
Sending us to a web-site with virtually no information and telling us to use the contact page there, which seems to be totally unresponsive, to get answers is poor form.
If the NVFAC is to survive, let alone succeed, then IMO they need better supporters and spokesmen then you.
Ken
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
When he and I were both on the SFA board, and beginning to be active in the legislative session, we had many discussions about the different 501(c) types, as it pertains to political activism.
Then you should feel bad for the acts of some forum members here. Also, you did imply that he and I were just 'playing games' with you.CowboyKen said:
We weren't.
That misrepresents my attitude.CowboyKen said:
Once again, you are misrepresenting my actions. Legitimate questions aren't 'out of line.' But, too many of the questions have seemed specifically for the reason of nitpicking a very new organization, as opposed to simply seeking information.CowboyKen said:
BS. When you have questions best answered by the board of the org, and/or by specific persons on the board, sending you to the contact page IS the best thing to do.CowboyKen said:
I have NEVER claimed to be a spokesman for them. If the NVFAC is to survive, what they really need is NUMBERS, lots of them, as I have pointed out earlier. Even the SFA with ~700 members did get noticed in session, from a population center of ~20,000. Now, imagine if the NVFAC could claim membership of that ratio against the NV population!CowboyKen said:
Their goals have been stated, and AFAIK, they ARE working towards those goals. Much of that is being worked towards the legislative session, which I support. To others, this simply hasn't been 'enough.'
I am not out to earn animosity, but I dislike when a new organization gets grilled as they have here, for nothing worse than that they aren't the best at communication, and that they aren't working on the hot-button agenda items of everyman who isn't a member of the org.
Much of how I see the org is because Larry believes the org can be effective. But, even that won't get progress made. Members and membership dues will though. IF you desire them to have a chance at success for NV gun owners, I do encourage you to join and make your voice heard as a member. Dislike me and my methods if you must, but don't hold that against the NVFAC, because I am not a spokesman for them. I am merely a Nevada Citizen who has seen firsthand how much we NEED a strong PAC during session. It DID make a difference when SFA lobbied for the group, and it will make a GREATER difference if a Statewide group can present membership numbers backing pro-2A legislative changes.
And, take this as it sounds, just like I told DVC. "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way."
That sounds rude, but seriously, if you at least support the stated goals of the organization, supporting them makes sense. Supporting them as a member increases their power, and adds your voice to the 'we need item x addressed' when they are setting goals and priorities. I have no doubt that the board and members hold more sway as to what gets addressed than do non-members. But, if you cannot find it in you to support them, at least try not to hinder them. For the first time since I began being active for gun rights, we have an organization that may be positioned to have REAL statewide impact in session; but they will NEED numbers.
DVC
Regular Member
Ever notice how when someone knows that they are in the wrong, don't know the answers at all, or have taken a stance to a religious level, they tend to attack anyone who asks questions that they don't like?
HOW DARE you not be satisfied with what wrightme demands that you accept as answers!!!
wrightme
Regular Member
DVC
Regular Member
wrightme;1760597 if you at least support the stated goals of the organization said:
DVC
Regular Member
Well, since that was only ONE of the possibilities, I find it interesting that you fixed on that one.
wrightme
Regular Member
Ridiculous comparison. I do not support their stated goals.
Either you support the stated goals of the NVFAC organization, or you don't. Given your statements about what your goals were in AZ, I would find it extremely odd for you to not support the stated goals of the NVFAC organization, yet you haven't shown support for them; because the answers you receive aren't good enough for you.
Do you support their goals or not? If you do, "lead, follow, or get out of the way." We get NO WHERE fighting amongst ourselves.
wrightme
Regular Member
You can 'find it interesting' all you want. You would be wasting effort on the speculations. That wasn't only 'one of the possibilities,' it was a speculation that was incorrect. The others weren't worthy of comment, as they are even less correct.
When others do not agree with you, that doesn't mean that they are wrong, have some 'stance at a religious level,' or 'don't know the answers that they aren't in a position to know,' or whatever other rationalization you create to make yourself feel better about attacking them.
If you want to help the causes, join. If you don't want to join, at least support the causes. If you want to hurt the causes, keep doing exactly what you have been doing in here.
Last edited:
DVC
Regular Member
I generally support NVFAC's stated goals.
However, as my example proves, ANYONE can "state" ANYTHING.
NVFAC's being "the official NRA affiliate" and having a member of the NVFAC leadership who is openly ANTI-OC are two major reasons for concern. You have offered nothing to attenuate those concerns, much less prove them groundless, and history has repeatedly shown that neither can be trusted as a protector of our civil rights.
Once again I repeat my promise that if NVFAC actually ever starts MOVING to accomplish their stated goals, I will help. A year and a half ago, I expressed my skepticism that this would take place. Since then, the only result has been smoke and hot air. When you stop shooting blanks, let me know.
wrightme
Regular Member
john-in-reno
Regular Member
I move to close this thread
More than half of the post in this thread are more or less 3 or 4 people attacking each other, Every time I see the thread come up I just shake my head and know what to expect!
Can we please either get the thread back on track or lock it!
More than half of the post in this thread are more or less 3 or 4 people attacking each other, Every time I see the thread come up I just shake my head and know what to expect!
Can we please either get the thread back on track or lock it!
DVC
Regular Member
Sorry, I lost track of how long NVFAC hasn't been doing anything. Seems longer than it is.
Once again, I ask you what progress YOU have seen NVFAC make. Use your OWN chosen metric, brag them up any way you like, so long as you can call it progress, which is the whole point of this thread.
wrightme
Regular Member
There you go again. You continue to falsely measure them against YOUR wishes.
Nope. We aren't playing your game. I have stated my position concerning the NVFAC and their goals. It really doesn't matter to me if you don't agree. But, as I have stated before, if you desire that Nevada progress to better (implying less) 2nd Amendment legislation, then "lead, follow, or get out of the way."DVC said:
Earlier you stated you were supporting group/s that actually DO something for Nevada. You still haven't shown which other group was active in Nevada.
DVC
Regular Member
Their GOALS aren't what this thread is about.
You are condemning those of us asking for a report on progress for "falsely measuring" the progress that has been made, so I'm asking what progress YOU are seeing that we seem to be missing.
Not goals, PROGRESS.
wrightme
Regular Member
No, I am condemning you for your penchant for complaining about their apparent 'lack of progress' as measured against your arbitrary goalposts; whether accurate or not.
What I see from you is that you will not see 'progress' unless something actually gets altered in firearms laws. "Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way."