*********** NOTICE: THIS IS A FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** 
============================================================================
Forced to follow the bylaws by a court order, NRA officials attempted
to skirt the injunction by publishing the caption of the suit that
gave rise to the injunction, including the names of ten petition
candidates. That fact and the tone of the commentary ("until it is
reversed") offended Judge Beatrice Shainswit enough to want to discuss
the matter further.  This column will run in Shotgun News next week.
If you haven't visited the Firearms Coalition web page lately, you'll
see several additions relating to the NRA squabble, including links to
pages opposed to the Second Amendment Action slate.  So much for the
whine about censorship.  
Stay tuned! 
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
NEAL KNOX REPORT
                    NRA 'Near Court Contempt'
                          By NEAL KNOX
     WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 10) --  New York Supreme Court
Justice Beatrice Shainswit last week declared that the NRA's
response to her Feb. 6 court order was "bordering very closely on
contempt."
     The attorneys for ten petition candidates who had
successfully sued NRA to comply with NRA's own fair election
bylaw were invited to "expeditiously" prepare a motion for
contempt of court.  She told long-time NRA outside legal counsel
Stephen N. Shulman that if they do, "I will bring a contempt
proceeding."
     What angered the judge was the way NRA (a New York
corporation) responded to her order enforcing a bylaw which
prohibits publication in NRA magazines of the method of
nomination of director candidates.  The bylaw, Article VIII, Sec.
3(e), says "no persons nominated by petition nor by the
Nominating Committee shall be so designated."
     That bylaw was intended to assure a level playing field for
all candidates, according to Gun Week Editor Joe Tartaro, who was
chairman of the Federation For NRA which drafted the bylaw and
caused its passage in 1979, over the objections of most of the NRA
Board (which tried to reverse it two years later).  
     With relatively few exceptions over the years (such as in
1991, when Harlon Carter encouraged Guns & Ammo readers to
support me and my slate of petition nominees) the Board-chosen
Nominating Committee has usually determined the outcome of the
elections -- which is why the Board majority has always wanted its
nominees published.
     NRA officers reluctantly removed the Nominating Committee
report, replacing it with a full-page "Notice" next to the ballot
saying the court had prohibited them from publishing the list,
adding:  "Until it is reversed, the injunction must be obeyed."
     And in blatant retaliation for bringing the lawsuit, the
officers identified the ten (obviously petitioned) candidates who
filed it.
     President Marion Hammer told the Washington Times: "Bringing
the courts in to tell us how to run the organization, rather than
the board, is just unconscionable."
     She didn't mention that Director Sally Drews Brodbeck had
attempted to prevent the lawsuit in January by calling the
Board's 23-member Executive Committee into a telephone meeting,
which requires 12 signatures.  The President and her supporters
opposed the meeting; only nine of us wanted to stay out of court.
     Three days after Justice Shainswit handed down her
injunction, NRA Counsel Shulman's request for a rehearing was
denied.  Then he asked a five-judge appellate court to lift the
injunction; that appeal was also denied.  
     Last week Shulman told Justice Shainswit, "judging the way
things have been going, it doesn't look very good for getting
reversals."
     Shulman, who has long supported publication of the
Nominating Committee report, including in a written opinion to NRA
Secretary Jim Land in December, tried to distance himself from the
"Notice."
     But Justice Shainswit didn't buy it: "Counsel, since I would
be amazed to learn you were not the one who drew this notice, I
find your innocence a little disturbing."
     Shulman offered to bring in "the Secretary of NRA who
prepared this notice" to "explain why it was prepared."  Those who
know Jim Land also know he would never have prepared such a notice
on his own or without specific legal guidance.
     The issues at stake are critical -- not just "who" is at the
helm of the NRA, but whether the Members have a real voice in
electing their representatives to the board, how those officers and
directors interpret the Second Amendment, what they do to defend
it, and whether the NRA's resources and credibility are protected.
     This isn't a new battle.  Eleven years ago, in the Feb. 10,
1987, Shotgun News I wrote:  "The NRA Board routinely violates the
Bylaws, as they did in the December issue, ordering the Nominating
Committee's list published in obvious violation of Art. VIII Sec.
3(e) ....
         "(P)ublication also violated the law, as described in the
Fitzgerald (v. NRA) ruling:  `(O)fficers and directors cannot
utilize corporate instrumentalities such as The American Rifleman
to perpetuate themselves in office.'" 
     The March 1998 ballot issue of NRA magazines has about
$200,000 (Member cost) of "advertorial" examples of what that
Federal judge declared is against the law:  Officers using the NRA
publications to perpetuate themselves in office, and to oppose the
Member bylaw requiring Directors to disclose financial benefits
they receive from NRA.
     Who is spending the Members' money to keep the Members in the
dark?
     Why?
                               ##
...          ******** NOTE: THIS IS A FORWARDED MESSAGE ********
--- FMail 1.22
---------------