NRA Annual Meetings

Well, I should have checked this out before, but I never got around to it.

I was planning on attending the NRA Annual Meetings this year since it’s being held so close to here.

Alas, it is not to be (link to pdf document):

Chapter 7, Rules and Regulations

7.30

DANGEROUS WEAPONS

A “dangerous weapon” is any object or device designed or intended to be used to inflict serious injury upon persons or property.

1. The possession of a dangerous weapon is prohibited in the Convention Center, except as provided below. Concealed weapons are strictly prohibited in the Convention Center.

The NRA again has chosen a venue that doesn’t respect the right that is ostensibly the entire purpose of the NRA.

And, again, I feel betrayed by the 800lb gorilla of the gun rights community.

I guess I could carry concealed anyway under the assumption that my defensive firearm doesn’t fit their definition of “dangerous weapon”.  My firearms are designed and intended not to inflict serious injury, but to prevent it.

Somehow I doubt that such an argument would fly very far, regardless of it’s truthfulness.

Not that the NRA gives a rat’s petootie about whether I’ll be there or not, but it’s very disappointing that the organization’s principles are again proven to be so…um…flexible.

Mine are not.  They can have their meetings without me.

Hat tip to VCDL’s VA-Alert

Update:  Sebastian disagrees.

8 thoughts on “NRA Annual Meetings

  1. It ought to be the NRA's standing policy that whatever convention venue is chosen is (1) in a state where both open and concealed carry is legal; (2) at a location / convention center that does not prohibit the free and lawful exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. NRA should make those two things a condition for choosing a venue for their annual meeting.

    With tens of thousands of attendees and the cash they spend on food, lodging and entertainment, that ought to be a good economic incentive to any state, city and convention center to be accommodating. Especially in this distressed economy.

  2. Based on my reading of North Carolina Law, banning of firearms by the owner or management of a premises is binding.

    Even if it's technically not, is it worth taking a chance?

    Not as far as I'm concerned. The NRA Annual Meetings is a luxury, not a necessity. I avoid all risk by simply choosing not to attend.

  3. I went and sent in a message to the NRA, and hope someone reads and answers the perception of a problem, but I don't think it will. I don't care about money, attending nor being banded from carrying my firearms forever. I do recall that the original Minutemen and Militia companies of New England were not cooperating with the lawful government, and died to make the point.

  4. I'm in the same position Curt. On the plus side, my habit of procrastinating has paid off for once.

    I'd also like to point out something related to the following statement:
    "I guess I could carry concealed anyway under the assumption that my defensive firearm doesn't fit their definition of "dangerous weapon". "

    It's good that your solution, in the end, is to just not go. I'm amazed at the number of gun owners, at the ranges especially, that throw around "law-abiding citizen" left and right. Then, when a prohibited area comes up, they pipe up with "concealed means concealed".

    You can't willfully violate the law and/or property owners rules, and then stand on the high horse about "law-abiding gun owners", at least not without being a hypocrite. I'm not suggesting that you are a hypocrite. That statement was just close enough to the stuff I hear from blowhards at the range to make me think of that.

  5. You can't willfully violate the law and/or property owners rules, and then stand on the high horse about "law-abiding gun owners", at least not without being a hypocrite.

    I'm with you there my friend. My statement was intended as a tongue-in-cheek dismissal of the language in their law that seems to presume ill intentions of gun owners, not a serious advocacy of ignoring the prohibition.

    Setting aside the hypocritical aspects, if we simply ignore anti-gun establishments' prohibitions and carry concealed, we are also de-facto supporting the anti-gun establishments' policies. When we patronize them despite their policies, we give them the impression that those policies have no adverse effects on their business, whereas if we pointedly take our money elsewhere, not only do we maintain our integrity as law abiding citizens, but we also explicitly shift our support from entities that do not respect our rights, to those that do.

    Win-win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.