NRA Membership to purchase firearm

[jpretle]

The following has been on the back burner of my mind for quite some time, and reading the NRA Membership thread below, brought it to the front.
Consider, if everyone who had a firearm to sell, sold only to a NRA Member, or maybe to a NRA Life Member. Or maybe went as far as to sell only to organizations that were ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Would not NRA membership increase??? Would the retailers, distributers and manufacturers squeal?--I suspect so.
I expect I will take flak for this, but I am only posing to solicit your thoughts.
Fire away.

 

[gunnermhr]

If you're the shop owner you could do that! It would probably be welcomed by more than what it would offend. To make it a Nationwide requirement I think is a bit ridiculous.

 

[gaboon]

If you buy a Taurus they will give you a NRA 1 yr or renewal membership.

 

[jpretle]

Not talking about any kind of requirement. Just an individual/business decision.

 

[TheOtherZilla]

How about this. When you buy a firearm the dealer buys you an NRA membership. A bit more realistic in my book.

 

[bobinpa]

It may be a good idea on a personal basis, but if it were a requirement by a business, I think some whiner would scream foul on a discriminatory basis......

In this day and age nobody is allowed to have their feelings hurt or be made to do anything they don't want to, as pathetic as all that may be, it's reality now.

 

[nicholst55]

I agree that the dealer should include a 1-yr NRA membership (or renewal) with each firearm sale. Of course, he would pass that cost along to the shooter/purchaser in the price of the firearm - as he should, IMHO. If the purchaser is already an NRA life member, then the membership could be passed along to someone else.

 

[GSPV]

If individual owners wanted to do such, and the buying populace had the choice to buy elsewhere, kudos to the seller.

As some sort of mandate, HECK NO. I've seen how that works in other countries...it creates a monster.

 

[22BRGUY]

Humans love gifts and freedom, they hate requirements JMHO

 

[digrazir]

I would consider mandatory membership in the NRA as a requirement to purchase a firearm an infringement of my second amendment rights....Ray

 

[muddy72]

At 1 of my LGS'S if you show your NRA membership it is automatically $5 off the price of a gun. Not much but something

 

[KevinL]

Obamacare x 2 no thank you! Gift or discount ,request but no on any more requirments.
Midway asks you to round up your bill. I do every order. But if they told me I had to be a member I would NEVER shop there again.
Call me old and cranky but no thanks.
Just me.
Kevin

 

[Joe R]

22BRGUY said: Humans love gifts and freedom, they hate requirements JMHO

+1, but I can't see a LGS paying for my membership, especially since many gun buyers already have one. They could hand out an NRA brochure at the cashier but I don't see the NRA sending boxes of brochures to the LGS either.

 

[Raythemanroe]

How about a donation made to the NRA when a gun purchase is made, like Midway does with purchases...

 

[audredger]

Don't mean to knock the NRA but, there are other gun rights groups out there. Kind of like if I give to one church and not the other you won't let me pray!?

 

[dickn52]

How about the store owner not listing the NRA membership, but just does it on purchase. Kinda like a bonus at checkout.

 

[Lesloan]

I think the only result would be a drop in firearms ownership.

 

[Barlow]

To have to join any organization, to be able to buy something is not something this old dude would do. Barlow

 

[Raythemanroe]

Really, if Remington or Ruger was selling there 700 or M77 for $650 instead of $635 and donated $15 to the NRA that would result in much fewer gun sales?

 

[Keith Glasscock]

While I am an advocate of everyone being a member of NRA, I disagree with the premise.

Think of this: The founding fathers created the Bill of Rights (including the second amendment) in direct response to the governing of the colonies by the British. I don't have the knowledge, nor do you have the time for a dissertation on the problems that existed.

If we (I'm referring to an absolute application of the OP's idea) try to restrict people's rights to keep and bear arms by forcing them to associate with an organization (NRA or any other), what would keep the government from using that as a back-door registration? By the same token, wouldn't it invalidate the very freedom we so cherish?

Just a thought...