GOA vs SAF...

**mrjam2jab** · February 1st, 2012, 07:14 PM

or both?

I've heard a couple negatives about both in the last couple weeks...but can't remember specifics.

Is "joining" one better than the other? Or still worth going with both?

**Brick** · February 1st, 2012, 07:22 PM

Both can't hurt. The more the merrier!

**MDJschool** · February 1st, 2012, 07:49 PM

Ask SAF how your membership money will be spent. Here is this response:
1) Concealed carry is not a right.
2) Your gun might not 'count' under the 2A.
2) Doing any act which might place police in situation where they could subsequently held accountable is either unlawful or not protected.
3) If you interfere with our "2A rights" plan, whatever it may be, we WILL throw you under the bus.
SAF is starting to look like another NRA with such an attitude. Who knew?

**TheF00L** · May 16th, 2012, 10:26 AM

I too am searching for which 2A org to donate to.

Obviously by reading each site, I will get a one sided view. I have already looked into SAF. Next I will do some research into GOA. NRA is not a consideration ATM.

This thread in my mind could be extremely helpful if actual members of each org could offer what they see as the good and bad (or anyone who has factually researchable information).

Thanks

**spacemanvic** · May 16th, 2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by MDJschool

Ask SAF how your membership money will be spent. Here is this response:
1) Concealed carry is not a right.
2) Your gun might not 'count' under the 2A.
2) Doing any act which might place police in situation where they could subsequently held accountable is either unlawful or not protected.
3) If you interfere with our "2A rights" plan, whatever it may be, we WILL throw you under the bus.
SAF is starting to look like another NRA with such an attitude. Who knew?

Post a link to your assertions. Here's the FAQ for SAF

**knight0334** · May 16th, 2012, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by TheF00L

I too am searching for which 2A org to donate to.

Obviously by reading each site, I will get a one sided view. I have already looked into SAF. Next I will do some research into GOA. NRA is not a consideration ATM.

This thread in my mind could be extremely helpful if actual members of each org could offer what they see as the good and bad (or anyone who has factually researchable information).

Thanks

In another industry ATM means something else, but there are plenty of asses and mouths in the NRA. LOL

**MDJschool** · May 17th, 2012, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by spacemanvic

Post a link to your assertions. Here's the FAQ for SAF

SAF and CalGuns brief in support of an agent of Tennessee government
Tell me that doesn't just blow your mind.

**spacemanvic** · May 17th, 2012, 01:44 PM

That case is an example of bad litigation:

Read this link, of which I took a sampling to address the case you cited

For counterpoint, let us consider Leonard Embody. Mr. Embody's antics are well-known at this point, but I'll recap briefly. There is a point to this.

Embody, who goes by the nom de plume "Kwikrnu" on the innumerable internet forums he's trolled, chooses to open carry. He doesn't do so for convenience, or as a demonstration of his rights. In fact, he's said that he's not even interested in the 2nd Amendment much at all. He does this to provoke police confrontation and lawsuits.

Imagine a guy who paints "Free Candy" on the side of a van, then cruises around in front of an elementary school handing out NAMBLA literature. Such actions might be protected by the 1st Amendment, but no free speech advocate in their right mind would want anything to do with the guy. He's gone too far, and he's just looking to get a rise out of someone. If he scores a lawsuit, he considers it a bonus.

Mr. Embody does much the same thing. Last year, he wasn't getting enough attention (or money) from law enforcement, so he bought a Draco pistol, painted the muzzle orange, and strolled around suburban Radnor Lake park on a Sunday afternoon. He was confronted by the police, who were none too happy, and when things didn't go his way, he sued.

Because, by his own admission, that's what this was all about.

His Tennessee carry permit was revoked. That was bad precedent #1. He then tried suing over his detention, and last week, a District Court threw his lawsuit out, claiming that Embody's rights were not violated. That's bad precedent #2.

**MDJschool** · May 17th, 2012, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by spacemanvic

That case is an example of bad litigation:

Read this link, of which I took a sampling to address the case you cited

This thread is about SAF and GOA, not about Leonard Embody. Somebody demands their rights and they should have them, but what SAF decided was that if someone demands their rights outside of the paradigm in which SAF both thinks they should have them substantively, and the means by which they try to enforce them, SAF will argue away all of our rights and take someone down. SAF didn't just draw the line at mitigating the potential damage of bad precedence (none of which is binding, by the way); this brief is going to come up in the future time and time again to show that SAF argued our rights weren't really rights and that police are pretty much reasonable in what they do, because every open carry is an affray.

The only reason we are in a situation where this 'bad litigation' could occur is because we didn't perform the maintenance required on our government to the date of the incident. SAF then did the unthinkable, and place themselves in the same category as the NRA, as a gun control organization, and soft shill and strawman for 'reasonable gun rights'.

How many people and how many rights will the SAF sacrifice to get it done their way?

**spacemanvic** · May 17th, 2012, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by MDJschool

This thread is about SAF and GOA, not about Leonard Embody. Somebody demands their rights and they should have them, but what SAF decided was that if someone demands their rights outside of the paradigm in which SAF both thinks they should have them substantively, and the means by which they try to enforce them, SAF will argue away all of our rights and take someone down. SAF didn't just draw the line at mitigating the potential damage of bad precedence (none of which is binding, by the way); this brief is going to come up in the future time and time again to show that SAF argued our rights weren't really rights and that police are pretty much reasonable in what they do, because every open carry is an affray.

The only reason we are in a situation where this 'bad litigation' could occur is because we didn't perform the maintenance required on our government to the date of the incident. SAF then did the unthinkable, and place themselves in the same category as the NRA, as a gun control organization, and soft shill and strawman for 'reasonable gun rights'.

How many people and how many rights will the SAF sacrifice to get it done their way?

Then do us a favor, dont drag Embody into this thread by posting a case that illustrates Leo Embody doing more harm to our 2A rights than any full fledged Anti. Didnt Leo even get banned from this site?