Quoted:


http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00481200

As of June 30, 2011 they had $30,369 on hand with nothing going out.

For the 2010 election cycle they had total receipts of $47,040. $16,496 of that was spent with $6,000 going to federal candidates.
Of the $10,496 left of that $6,406 went to "Spectrum Marketing", $2,090 went to "Print Mail Communication", and $2,000 went to "Iowans for Lower Taxes".

Quoted:
You guys are going after one of the most staunch advocates we have because you don't like the language in a fundraising letter.

This is ridiculous. He's been the most effective pro gun force in CO since he founded the RMGO, and he's been doing this since the early 90's. He's about as "non-fudd" as you can get, and he helps organize the biggest MG shoot in a 4 state area every year. An uncompromising, hardcore originalist conservative who breathes gun rights is an enemy because of a fundraising letter.

Way to eat our own.

Quoted:
You guys are going after one of the most staunch advocates we have because you don't like the language in a fundraising letter.

This is ridiculous. He's been the most effective pro gun force in CO since he founded the RMGO, and he's been doing this since the early 90's. He's about as "non-fudd" as you can get, and he helps organize the biggest MG shoot in a 4 state area every year. An uncompromising, hardcore originalist conservative who breathes gun rights is an enemy because of a fundraising letter.

Way to eat our own.

Quoted:


That's good to know.

Don't know why he can't endorse candidates though.

Is his organization the type where you can deduct contributions on your tax return?

ETA:  If the answer is "yes", I would seriously advise Dudley to not try and circumvent the "no political endorsement" rule by attempting to find some "loophole".

Quoted:


Go to their site.  At the bottom it clearly states they are a "(4)" organization and it clearly states any contributions are NOT tax deductible.  He lied.

Quoted:


That's good to know.

Don't know why he can't endorse candidates though.

Is his organization the type where you can deduct contributions on your tax return?

ETA:  If the answer is "yes", I would seriously advise Dudley to not try and circumvent the "no political endorsement" rule by attempting to find some "loophole".

Quoted:




Section 501(c)(4) organizations are oftentimes formed to do just that (i.e., make political endorsements, provide political opinions, etc.)

He should have just said "We need $5 to keep this organization going".

Quoted:

.................

Maybe so. Regardless, he's NOT our enemy. Far from it.

Quoted:


Maybe so. Regardless, he's NOT our enemy. Far from it.

Quoted:

.....................

He's very likely going to lose his PAC and 501c3 status if IRS sees this thread or hears about his little scam.  He could also face jail time depending on how many people he scammed so far with this tactic.

Quoted:
You guys are going after one of the most staunch advocates we have because you don't like the language in a fundraising letter.

This is ridiculous. He's been the most effective pro gun force in CO since he founded the RMGO, and he's been doing this since the early 90's. He's about as "non-fudd" as you can get, and he helps organize the biggest MG shoot in a 4 state area every year. An uncompromising, hardcore originalist conservative who breathes gun rights is an enemy because of a fundraising letter.

Way to eat our own.

Quoted:


Beekeeper said his organization falls under section 501(c)(4)......so he can endorse candidates like you say and he won't be in any trouble in that regard.

But his methods for getting money do not appear to be above board.  Maybe he can get into trouble for asking for donations under false pretenses?

ETA:  Did you see someplace that he might be a section 501(c)(3) type of organization?  Nevermind, you already answered this question.

Quoted:











Maybe so. Regardless, he's NOT our enemy. Far from it.

Quoted:


The list of NAGR-lovers is getting smaller.
 

Quoted:







You loved posting that, didn't you.

Quoted:


If I were more niggardly with my humorous comments, I wouldn't be me now would I?
 

Quoted:


Beekeeper said his organization falls under section 501(c)(4)......so he can endorse candidates like you say and he won't be in any trouble in that regard.

But his methods for getting money do not appear to be above board.  Maybe he can get into trouble for asking for donations under false pretenses?

ETA:  Did you see someplace that he might be a section 501(c)(3) type of organization?  Nevermind, you already answered this question.

Quoted:


My bad, I mistyped.  501c4 is correct.

Quoted:



Holy fuck.  I go into the real world for a day and come back and this hurricane of a shit storm happens... wow.  To quote Erkel...  "Did I do that?"





I guess Mr. Brown couldn't stand the heat.  The point of my post is that we've been fucked by politicians, gun rights groups, the media and others.  I'm sick of it.  As another poster said in the thread, if you want my support and money, don't lie to me to get it.  I did not intend for this thread to blow up like it did.  I'm glad it did though because now another scam artist has been outed hard and maybe, just maybe other groups will get a clue.  





I work with the Heller Foundation and the Bill of Rights Foundation.  Most people don't know that both of those organizations started with two guys in a basement with an idea.  That idea led to the Heller victory in 2008.  They aren't rich, they don't scam for money.  Every penny that comes in to the Heller Foundation goes to present and upcoming cases.  Dick Heller earns his own money as a security guard.  100% of the money taken in by Heller goes towards YOUR rights.  Heller deserves a salary from his efforts but he won't accept one.  It's more important to him to put that money to work for you and me.  I've donated my time, money, blood and sweat for the Heller Foundation.  So have people like Oleg Volk and many others who share the dream.





That's the kind of organization I respect and will work with.  An organization that publishes letters like what I quoted in my initial post will never, ever get my support.





Thanks to you all for the support and help on this thread.  You all have my deepest appreciation.

Dear NAGR Supporter,

Did you get the messages my attorney, David Warrington, sent you last week?

I haven't heard from you yet and it is absolutely essential you take action.

You see, if the gun-grabbers get their way, this could be the LAST letter I write you.

Anti-gun lawyers and their pals in the federal bureaucracy have targeted the National Association for Gun Rights for ELIMINATION.

Of course, I've had radical anti-gun groups and their pet lawyers, judges and politicians come after me before.

I've even been threatened with jail time in the past for my uncompromising defense of your Second Amendment rights.

But unless you act TODAY, I'm afraid the gun-grabbers could finally succeed in shutting me up –– and shutting the National Association for Gun Rights down.

That's why it's vital you fill out the National Association for Gun Rights' MEMBER BALLOT I've created for you IMMEDIATELY.

I'll give you a link in a second, but first I want you to know just how important this is.

You see, at the request of my attorney, David Warrington –– a close friend, former Marine and Chairman of the NAGR's Board of Directors –– I've had a series of meetings with several lawyers who are all experts on grassroots organizations.

These lawyers specialize in defending pro-freedom groups like NAGR against spurious attacks from left-wing groups and their allies in the federal bureaucracy.

Going into it, I thought it was just a formality. After all, NAGR doesn't do anything wrong.

And what about left-wing groups like ACORN? They seemingly get away with murder and always seem to get off scot free!

We follow the law. Isn't that enough?

The attorneys told me not to be naïve.

They said President Obama has stacked EVERY last bureaucracy in Washington with radical left-wing extremists –– all of whom HATE the National Association for Gun Rights and anyone who stands for freedom.

And if they believe they have the opportunity for a "quick kill," they won't hesitate to drag NAGR into court.

That's why it's vital you fill out this MEMBER BALLOT IMMEDIATELY.

You see, those attorneys told me my defense will be strongest only if as many folks as possible certify each year that they do consider themselves to be members of NAGR.

As absurd as seems, the gun-grabbers, their lawyers and anti-gun federal bureaucracts say you are not a "real" member.

So you shouldn't be entitled to the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as liberal gun control groups who are "fighting to our make communities safer!"

I don't know about you, but that infuriates me.

But I also know that with everything at stake this year, the last thing we need is a new legal fight.

So please fill out this MEMBER BALLOT I've created for you certifying that you do consider yourself a member of NAGR –– and if you would, please give me your advice too.

You see, with everything on our plate right now, I need to make sure that NAGR's priorities line up with yours.

And there's not a moment to waste because the fights to stop the gun-grabbers' schemes in Congress are really heating up.

As I told you before, Sarah Brady and the rest of her anti-gun allies are furious at the Democrat Congressional Leadership.

They're screaming that they've been given nothing in return for putting anti-gun Democrats in power. And some gun control groups are threatening to sit out the November elections if they don't see immediate action on their radical anti-gun agenda!

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know they'll need anti-gun votes to hold on to their majorities this election year.

So you know the Democrats in Congress will do EVERYTHING to ram through every item on the gun-grabbers' agenda, including:
*** The Disarming American Citizens Act –– H.R. 2159 the so-called "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009" –– allowing anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke the Second Amendment rights of ANY American he chooses based on pure "suspicion;"

*** A new so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban, targeting ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns –– which, unlike the Clinton ban, will never expire;

*** H.R. 45, the "Catch-All" Obama Gun Control Bill, which would create a national gun registry, require a two-day waiting period, hike taxes on gun sales, federally ban ALL private firearms sales and FORCE you to take a written exam just to prove you're "fit" to own a firearm;

*** The U.N.'s "Small Arms Treaty," which would confiscate and destroy ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms and set the stage for international gun confiscation. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust [small-arms] treaty.
I'm sure, especially after coming this far, you would hate to see the gun-grabbers succeed in ramming even one item on their anti-gun agenda into law.

So if you think we should focus on the gun-grabbers' assaults in Congress, mark "Federal Legislation" on your MEMBER BALLOT.

But before you do, please remember you and I are in the middle of a critical election year, as well –– and the only way to ultimately STOP the gun-grabbers' radical schemes is to change politicians.

The good news is there are numerous opportunities.

Anti-gun Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) have seen their polls plummet in recent months.

Even once "untouchable" anti-gun incumbent Democrats like Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are now vulnerable!

But without our IMMEDIATE action, I'm afraid the change in the political environment could make virtually no difference.

You see, Sarah Brady and her anti-gun pals' ultimate goal is to have never-ending supply of politicians in BOTH parties they can call on to ram through attacks on our gun rights.

So the gun-grabbers are doing everything they can to intimidate politicians in BOTH parties into kowtowing to their radical agenda.

But their success depends on keeping their views hidden.

The fact is, even the most rabidly anti-gun politicians like John Kerry and Barack Obama never come right out and say, "Our goal is to take your guns away!"

So it's up to you and me to expose anti-gun politicians in both parties by running a full-scale, nationwide survey program to show folks exactly where their candidates REALLY stand on our gun rights.

But the 2010 primaries have begun, so we have to start now!

So if you think our survey program should be the top priority, please mark "2010 Candidate Survey" on your MEMBER BALLOT.

Of course, there is one more option: "Fight All the Above."

But please recognize how serious this is.

Unless you and other loyal NAGR members make a special contribution of $200, $100 or $50, there's just no way I can run a full-scale Candidate Survey Program and continue our lobbying efforts.

I may be forced to make deep cuts in existing programs.

So please rush me your most generous contribution of $200, $100, $50 or at least $35 TODAY!

Believe me, I know this is a tremendous amount to ask.

Even if you can't afford to contribute, please certify your membership by filling out the MEMBER BALLOT I've created for you immediately.

And if you can, please return your most generous contribution of $200, $100, $50 or $35 TODAY!

Sincerely,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. The critical 2010 election year is upon us and legislative battles against the gun-grabbers' radical agenda still rage on in Congress.

So I need your IMMEDIATE advice.

Please rush back the enclosed MEMBER BALLOT along with your most generous contribution of $200, $100, $50 or $35 TODAY.[/i]

Quoted:
Based on this 2010 letter from NAGR that I found at: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=446542 , it doesn't look like the approach that got him in trouble here is all that unusual for Mr. Brown:

Quoted:


So has anyone invited Mr. Brown into the Bar Pit yet?

Quoted:
Wow.

This went sideways in a hurry...

Quoted:
Really?  

Scam artist?

Before you go calling people names, you might want to talk with them.  

Do what you wish, of course, but –– all humility aside –– I'll put my pro-gun credentials up against anyone in America.

First and foremost, I'm a pretty open book.

(and, incidentally, I'm a HUGE AR-15 nut –– as you might tell by the logos of the organizations I've created)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Brown

As someone who has been involved as a gun lobbyist for almost 20 years,I've dedicated my entire adult life to fighting for individual gun rights both in myhome state of Colorado (through Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the largest gun rights group in Colorado) and for the last 5 years with the National Association for Gun Rights.

While relatively new to the political landscape – having been formed in 2001 – NAGR is growing rapidly as dissatisfaction with the compromises of the institutional gun lobby have become more and more apparent. NAGR’s strategy is pretty simple: Hold politicians accountable for their actions, and draw a line in the sand, standing against any compromise of our God-given right to keep and bear arms.  You can read more about our strategy here

For those who believe that they would rather spend their money on “trusted” groups such as the NRA – for fear that groups like National Association for Gun Rights just want your money – first do yourself the favor of researching the salaries of the top executives at places like the NRA to see where, exactly, that money is going. The National Association for Gun Rights does not have high-paid executives – it has a staff of people who are dedicated to the cause of freedom rather than making six- and seven-figure salaries. Victories such as winning the battle of Constitutional Carry in Wyoming would not be possible otherwise.

We work tightly with numerous state groups such as Wyoming Gun Owners, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Georgia Gun Owners, Iowa Gun Owners, Wisconsin Gun Owners, and Grass Roots North Carolina, (to name a few), in order to affect change at the state level, rather than putting all our effort into the fight on the national level. We believe that more positive change can be made by ensuring the election of staunch, pro-gun officials at the state level as well as stopping anti-gun politicians from being reelected. Each state has its own nuances, and that is how we are growing – by having people on the ground in each state around the country in order to best understand how to win these political battles. We refuse to sit in a cushy office in D.C. and claim to know what is going on in your home town without having been there.

If you’re interested in slick, Gucci-loafered lobbyist who buy $200 lunches in posh D.C. eateries, we’re not your group.

We’re experienced, in-the-trenches ground fighters, who want to see our gun rights preserved.  And we’re tired of the backroom deals that have slowly but surely turned our “right” into a privilege.

As far as "supporting those who work on issues like the Chicago/McDonald case", suggest you READ Justice Alito's majority opinion, since I'm actually quoted in it.

Dudley Brown quoted by US Supreme Court

The original post brings up an e-mail we sent out about limitations on our affiliated federal PAC.  Those who follow the FEC rules (which are EXTREMELY strict) know that an affiliated PAC cannot ask for a penny from those who aren't members of our main organization (which is a 501-c-4).  And communications to non-members have been restricted by legislation like McCain/Feingold and other campaign finance deform laws.

The NRA-supported "DISCLOSE Act", which failed to pass, also placed grave restrictions on Constitutionally protected speech to gun owners.  

Again, do what you wish, of course, but –– all humility aside –– I'll put my pro-gun credentials up against anyone in America.

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

Quoted:
Guys,

I write technical business proposals all the time, getting customers is one of my main job functions.

What I do is I list the similar projects I worked on in the past and then I write a detailed description of how I would approach this new project.

And I show that I have the staff and resources to do the work.

That approach gives me credibility and shows that I understand how to actually get the work done.


Don't you think it's kind of suspicous that none of the small gun-rights groups ever does the above method to win your membership?

Their entire marketing scheme consists of crowing about how they are a tier one badass and that the NRA is just awful.


The NRA is not above criticism,

but I'm not so sure that we should divert resources to organizations whose entire product line consists of screeching about how "no compromise" they are and how the NRA is secretly part of a chinese heroin tong or whatever 'artful" BS they dream up that week.

Quoted:
Since my name and credentials were being questioned, I said "I'll put my pro-gun credentials up...."

I did NOT suggest I was the be-all, end-all of gun rights.  But if you attack my intentions, I'll compare them.

I'm not hiding behind an avatar/username.  So I can't check your credentials.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Back to the actual issue:

Do you or "Bubbles" run Federal PACs? If so, which ones?  State PACs?  If so....

Despite McCain/Feingold being overturned, many states passed campaign finance laws that mirrored it.

Quoted:


We have a lot of fucking idiots here. Pay no attention to them.

Quoted:


Just a thought, but you may wish to read the entire thread before you jump on his wagon.  

Quoted:
<snip>

Half of the posters on this thread would argue with me if I said the sun rose in the east.  And since I don't lurk on forums like this, I don't even get half of your jokes/insults.

I'll challenge the "leader" on this, such as beekeeper or Hard_rock, to a phone discussion.  But I won't trade barbs back and forth.  Too many REAL things to do.

Quoted:
As I stated PAGES ago:

Our attorneys are worried about things like DISCLOSE, new efforts to circumvent Citizens United and want us to be able to call as many people members as humanly possible (even if they only chip-in a few bucks to our 501-c-4, it allows our PAC to communicate with them), thus being able to talk to them about politicians, regardless of new attempts to curtail that speech. You are correct if you say my letter doesn't quite explain it that way. Mea culpa.

––––-

You are right in that our PAC can tell people who we endorse, but it has to modify ALL communications to non-members, as we can't even ASK for money from them, since we're an affiliated PAC.

Quoted:
As I stated PAGES ago:

Our attorneys are worried about things like DISCLOSE, new efforts to circumvent Citizens United and want us to be able to call as many people members as humanly possible (even if they only chip-in a few bucks to our 501-c-4, it allows our PAC to communicate with them), thus being able to talk to them about politicians, regardless of new attempts to curtail that speech. You are correct if you say my letter doesn't quite explain it that way. Mea culpa.

––––-

You are right in that our PAC can tell people who we endorse, but it has to modify ALL communications to non-members, as we can't even ASK for money from them, since we're an affiliated PAC.

Quoted:
This thread has gone so far beyond the original discussion....

Quoted:


This thread has gone so far beyond the original discussion....



One attorney has already read this thread, told me to return the snark in kind, and ignore.



When someone here shows me the Federal PAC they run, and can talk authoritatively about the issue, I'll dismiss the advice I'm getting.  But I don't think I'll tell a board of directors "I'm taking the sage advice, quoted directly from an online forum, of 'The BeeKeeper' –– no, I don't know his real name, and he could be either a constitutional scholar or flip burgers at a fast food joint, not sure which –– over the advice of attorneys who've been involved in the trenches of political free speech.  Oh, and by the way, that advice comes from someone who doesn't even agree with us on a strategic level."



That seems like a winning plan, doesn't it? <––––Rhetorical question

Quoted:

Half of the posters on this thread would argue with me if I said the sun rose in the east.

Quoted:
Thank you, Mike, that's exactly what I'm doing.

We don't like the direction the "gun movement" has been headed, which is why Rocky Mountain Gun Owners was formed in Colorado.  If you live in Colorado and are a gun rights activist (not someone who simply likes firearms), you're probably a member.

And that's why NAGR was formed, as a 501-c-4.  We also have a foundation and a federal, affiliated PAC, and work with MANY state-level gun rights groups.

Unlike many on this forum, I'm not afraid of putting my name on a dotted line, not because I've never done anything wrong (I certainly have), but because I'm willing to fight it out against ANYONE who wants to take away my gun rights.

Most often, that "taking away our gun rights" is done by compromise.  Deals cut (can anyone here say "Brady Bill"??).  Sure makes it hard to say "someone stole my ranch" when, in fact, you willingly GAVE them half of it, usually accompanied by a "but if we didn't accept that deal we'd get something worse."  Thanks, but no thanks.  

If you don't agree with that, or our strategy, which is outlined here , then fine.  Figure out your own strategy (hint: posting flames on a forum isn't a strategy for anything but wasting time) and do it.

Half of the posters on this thread would argue with me if I said the sun rose in the east.  And since I don't lurk on forums like this, I don't even get half of your jokes/insults.

I'll challenge the "leader" on this, such as beekeeper or Hard_rock, to a phone discussion.  But I won't trade barbs back and forth.  Too many REAL things to do.

Quoted:
As I stated PAGES ago:

Our attorneys are worried about things like DISCLOSE, new efforts to circumvent Citizens United and want us to be able to call as many people members as humanly possible (even if they only chip-in a few bucks to our 501-c-4, it allows our PAC to communicate with them), thus being able to talk to them about politicians, regardless of new attempts to curtail that speech. You are correct if you say my letter doesn't quite explain it that way. Mea culpa.

––––-

You are right in that our PAC can tell people who we endorse, but it has to modify ALL communications to non-members, as we can't even ASK for money from them, since we're an affiliated PAC.