TexasCHLforum.com

Sorry Rooster, but that's the part I cannot comment on. NRA Board policy and actions are not appropriate for comment by any individual Director.

I'm not trying to be cryptic here; I simply have neither the authority nor the right to comment, in my official capacity as an NRA Board member.

Regards,
Chas.

After re-reading this thread, I think I may have tried to be a little too cute and criptive, so let me explain.

I don't feel I can comment on the fact that another NRA Director said or did something; that's a matter for the Board to address or not address, as a body.

I think perhaps some folks took my comment to mean I can't comment on the 10 round mag portion of the Assault Weapons Ban and that's not what I meant at all. So, just to be on the safe side, I am absolutely against every aspect of the Assault Weapons Ban, including any limitation on mag. capacity. Over the years since 1994, I've made this position clear in many of my posts on various forums and news groups, as well as in interviews as an NRA Board member since my first election. During the period in 2004 when the Assault Weapons Ban re-authorization was being pushed in Washington, I got almost weekly reports on the progress of efforts to kill it.

Sorry if I confused anyone.

Chas.

Flatland2D wrote:I don't get why everyone is so upset. A gun with 5 rounds in the mag is only half as likely to be used in a crime than a gun with 10 rounds. It's just simple math.

Kalrog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I hope you guys understand that as a member of the NRA Board of Directors, I cannot comment on this issue, as I must be cognizant that anything I say may be viewed in my official capacity as a representative of the NRA, and not merely an expression of my personal opinion.

Chas.

Very wise. Oh well

I agree - very wise. The flip side of that statement is that we must then assume that this "personal" statment from this other member must also be taken in the same light and viewed as an official position of the NRA.

Sorry, just playing Devil's Advocate here...

It absolutely isn't the NRA's position, as is evidenced by our successful efforts to prevent reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. But you are reading between the lines of my response - as I thought many would.

Chas.

one eyed fatman wrote:

propellerhead wrote:He stated it was his personal opinion.

If he's being paid to represent the NRA his personal views should be the same as the NRA's. If his views are different then he's in the wrong job.

NRA Board members are not paid. In fact, I work about 150 to 200 hours a year for the NRA and I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in billings since 2001 that could have been generated by working for paying clients.

I'm not offering this for any purpose other than to reassure people that NRA Directors are not paid for their service.

Regards,
Chas.

KD5NRH wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I hope you guys understand that as a member of the NRA Board of Directors, I cannot comment on this issue, as I must be cognizant that anything I say may be viewed in my official capacity as a representative of the NRA, and not merely an expression of my personal opinion.
Chas.

Then can you comment on the rudeness of wearing one's hat indoors? I thought at least the NRA would push for some rules of decorum among its board members.

Huh?

Chas.

gigag04 wrote:<~~~~~~~~ anxiously awaiting Chas' response.

I hope you guys understand that as a member of the NRA Board of Directors, I cannot comment on this issue, as I must be cognizant that anything I say may be viewed in my official capacity as a representative of the NRA, and not merely an expression of my personal opinion.

Chas.