Illinois State Rifle Association

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I'd like some opinions from other members here, about this situation. It's a long story, but here goes.

In March, a good friend of mine, ran for State Rep in the Republican primary in Illinois. At the last minute, the ISRA came out & publicly supported his opponent. My friend is an ISRA member in good standing & has been for a long time, I don't know exactly how long, but I believe decades. He was not pleased with the ISRA supporting his opponent, and I agreed with him. I called the ISRA & spoke with Richard Pearson, the head of the ISRA, about this.

I confirmed with Mr. Pearson that my friend was (and still is, unbelievably) an ISRA member in good standing, and that my friend's opponent was not, nor had ever been, a member of the ISRA. I asked Pearson if the opponent was, or had ever been, a member of any other pro-Second Amendment group (my friend is a long-time NRA Life Member, as am I), and the answer was no, not to his knowledge. I asked Pearson if the opponent had ever, prior to running for office, publicly stated his support for the Second Amendment, as I know my friend has, in letters to the editor in newspapers, as well as interviews by local media. The answer again was no, not to the knowledge of Pearson. I asked Pearson if the opponent had ever done anything to show support for the Second Amendment, like my friend, who started/ helped start a local FNRA chapter after being asked by an NRA Field Rep who, I believe, read of my friend's pro-Second Amendment beliefs in the newspaper. Same answer, no.

So then I asked, how does the ISRA support a candidate who is not a member, with absolutely zero prior known support of the Second Amendment, over a candidate who is a member of the ISRA with a strong, known record of supporting the Second Amendment. Pearson said the ISRA sent out candidate questionaires, and the other guy answered about the same as my friend, so it was a level playing field. Then the final answer, the sitting State Rep in the district (not running for re-election) asked the ISRA to support the other guy, so they did.

I was, and still am, pissed about this. I am not, nor have I ever been, and most certainly never will be after this, an ISRA member.

So, I ask all of you, what do you think of what the ISRA did on this case?

I think you should research the relationship between Mr. Pearson and the incumbent. Sounds like good ol' cronyism to me and not an indictment of the ISRA as a whole.

I believe that at times the ISRA is going to support a candidate who is more likely to win an election and help the cause than one who publicly shows more support for the Second Amendment, but is less likely to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomD

I think you should research the relationship between Mr. Pearson and the incumbent. Sounds like good ol' cronyism to me and not an indictment of the ISRA as a whole.

---

I think something is going on with this, you may be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T2C

I believe that at times the ISRA is going to support a candidate who is more likely to win an election and help the cause than one who publicly shows more support for the Second Amendment, but is less likely to win.

---

The race was very tight, my pal lost by 266 votes out of, I think 10,000. This was not a case where the other guy was a shoe-in, at all. In fact, I think the ISRA support may be the reason the other guy won, but obvioulsly that's a total guess on my part.

No sarcasm intended where at all, but are you saying that you think pro-Second Amendment groups, like the ISRA, ought to support/endorse someone without any history of being pro-Second Amendment whatsoever over someone who has shown their support for the Second Amendment?

I am not always happy with their choice in candidates and I have let people at the ISRA know. I believe they try to back who they think will win in the long haul.

The ISRA is not perfect, but they are the biggest dog in the fight to protect our firearm rights in Illinois.

I know what you're saying, but I don't agree with the idea of a pro-gun lobby group backing someone just because that person "probably" will win. A pro-gun lobby group ought to back the best/most proven supporter(s) of the Second Amendment. When they don't, it makes me think they have an agenda other than supporting the Second Amendment.

Sounds like a favor was called in. Perhaps the standing member has a relationship with the ISRA.

Politics. pshhh

Look at how Bernie Sanders got his start... :jester: