Tom Gresham bashes GOA on radio

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Thank you john for admitting my core point, that veterans are being disarmed because they aren't good with finances."

You can't read, can you, or are you just jerking me around for grins? That's not what I said. That's exactly the opposite of what I said. Try reading it again.

It's not being bad with finances that gets folks in trouble and assigned a representative payee. It's when they repeatedly show they can't take care of themselves and manage their day to day activities. It's when they have the utilities cut off for months at a time, live in their car or under a bridge after they lose their home or apartment, wander the street, stop eating, have one medical crisis after another because they won't keep appointments and take meds, drink and drug into oblivion, etc. Not paying bills is a symptom of many illnesses and situations, not the disease.

I've worked with hundreds - thousands? - of folks with representative payees. They were given a payee because they couldn't or wouldn't do the simple things that millions of us do every single day to survive.

Not to be mean, but honestly, they don't have to take the check if they don't like having a payee.

I also believe that there should be an easy way to get off the payee system when things improve, because some people do change and regain control of their life. It's already possible to get off it, it just isn't easy enough IMO.

John

Edited to add: For the past 34 years I've worked with folks in the process of making changes and improving their lives. I seen successes and I've seen failures and I've seen everything in between.

One man comes to mind. I met him in 1979. He had 3 disability checks coming in every month and had been an Army Captain. He had a great deal of money in the bank. He was clean, polite and well behaved. He had a little room in a boarding house and a single-speed bike. He was severely depressed, but content if that makes any sense. He often forgot to pay his bills, so eventually Social Security and the VA assigned him a payee. He wanted to work, but had trouble sticking to a schedule of any sort.
 
Hey, I'm still waiting for any GOA kool-aid drinker to show me one thing that GOA has ever accomplished, other than providing a lavish lifestyle for Larry Pratt and other members of the Pratt family who make up most of the paid employees of this so-called "pro-gun" group.
Stagger Lee - Larry Pratt was paid $67,500 in 2006, Tim Macy the Vice Chair was paid $48,000, H.L. Richardson the chairman was paid $24,000, and Jerry Ognibene and Sam Paredes, both directors, were not paid at all. Everyone else on their payroll comes to $345,307 in the year, including $63,237 in management/general, and $64,653 in fundraising. No benefits, either. Their accountant got $12,466, and their lawyer got $5,675 that year. Lavish?

I don't know about you, but I don't think $67,500 with no benefits buys a very "lavish" lifestyle these days.

All this information is available for review in GOA's Form 990, which they are required to file annually as a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization.
 
mvpel,

Interesting. Where did you come by this? And if you know that, how much did they actually take in and how much did they spend, and on what?

Since they neither lobby nor print a magazine, buy advertising or do anything other than send out fundraising e-mails, what are they spending the money on?
 
Bartholomew Roberts,

Great posts, as usual. You always make the most reasoned and researched posts here and on THR. I guess that's why I quote you more than anybody else. :)
 
Bart you just don't listen, in the PRESENT TENSE, veterans who are given a financial guardian ARE being disarmed. Did you hear me that time? You didn't even mention the financial guardian issue in your posts. It's the core of this issue, why did you avoid it in BOTH of your back to back posts? Because you don't want to talk about how if you are given a financial guardian you lose your 2nd amendment? Yep.

John, you know what I meant don't split hairs. The bottom line is you support the taking of people's second amendment rights if they are given a financial guardian. Tell me how these people are a danger to themselves or others. Come on john, quit hiding behind their "demonstrated inability to manage their own finances" (you say that like it's a crime in and of itself). This conversation is incredible because you won't give an inch when it comes to allowing these specific veterans their 2nd amendment rights. You go on an on about bills and finance like you've forgotten this is a 2nd amendment issue. By the way, the rudeness in your opening sentence of your post speaks volumes. I haven't been rude to you so what gives?
 
Mvpel is correct. It's easy to find GOA's Forms 990 on google. Just type in "GOA's Form 990" and you'll find what you are looking for. These exempt organizations filings are part of the public record

GOA is not taking in lavish amounts of money and not paying its officers lavish amounts of salaries/benefits IMHO.

For example:

Total gross receipts in calendar year 2004 were roughly $2 million. Total expenses roughly $2.1 million. Pratt's salary $65,000. Others' salaries roughly $430,000. Travel $21,000. Postage and printing $680,000. Net assets at 12-31-2004 were $530,000 (i.e., this is the same as retained earnings for tax paying entities). Management expenses $144,000. Only one of four officers is paid a salary (i.e., Lawrence Pratt). Employee benefits roughly $161,000. Automobile expense $3,000.

Most of their depreciable assets have already been fully depreciated and they do not appear to be "questionable" assets if you get what I mean. Mostly computer equipment/software and about 90 percent depreciated by the start of calendar year 2005.

GOA did worse in calendar year 2006. Mvpel already gave some amounts on that calendar year filing. They do not appear to have purchased any new depreciable assets and accumulated depreciation is almost at 100 percent of the original cost basis as of the start of calendar year 2007.


GOA is not the lavish, extravagant organization some of the posters have opined IMHO.

This took me about 15 seconds to find and I simply don't know why people are trashing an organization before they do their homework. It's almost to the point of libelous behavior IMHO.

I know very little about GOA, however, in about 15 seconds I was satisfied they are not a crooked organization. Whether or not they are effective, I have no idea because I don't know much about them. But to insinuate they are crooks doesn't pan out by taking a 15 second look at their Form 990.

http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

Stagger Lee: I seriously suggest you email GOA and let them know what you posted and apologize for your statements. What you said could be construed as libelous behavior IMHO.
 
Last edited:
"John, you know what I meant don't split hairs. The bottom line is you support the taking of people's second amendment rights if they are given a financial guardian. Tell me how these people are a danger to themselves or others. Come on john, quit hiding behind their "demonstrated inability to manage their own finances" (you say that like it's a crime in and of itself). This conversation is incredible because you won't give an inch when it comes to allowing these specific veterans their 2nd amendment rights. You go on an on about bills and finance like you've forgotten this is a 2nd amendment issue. By the way, the rudeness in your opening sentence of your post speaks volumes. I haven't been rude to you so what gives?"


Well, not reading what I'm writing is rude. You still haven't read every word I've posted - you're picking and choosing what you want to see. Being assigned a representative payee is not about money, finances, writing checks or any of that. It's about the demonstrated inability to care for oneself. And that's the core of the legal definition of incompetent - unable to care for yourself and placing yourself in some sort of danger due to poorly thought out living arrangements or untreated health problems.

Of course the other half the legal definition that will get you in trouble is being a danger to others, but the payee system has much more to do with danger to oneself through inaction or poor judgement, etc.

And as the gun laws are currently written a person who has been adjudicated (judged) mentally incompetent isn't allowed to buy a gun.

Like I said before, anyone with a representative payee can appeal the decision and submit evidence to regain control of their check.

All of this might not be the best system, but it is the system we have right now. Like all systems, if a person understands it they can work it to their advantage.

John
 
Personally, I don't have a problem with the GOA. There are a couple movies from JPFO which feature Mr. Pratt in them in interviews, and in my opinion, he seemed like a well informed respectable individual.

Next, like previously stated, I am a life member of the NRA, and I have even volunteered with Friends of the NRA as a committee member to help raise money for youth shooting programs out here in California. I'm not even a California state resident, but it gives me something constructive to do to ensure they do not lose one of our very important rights. Think, if kids don't know how to shoot and handle firearms, all they will know is the stigma they get from movies. Hollywood is not a very accurate portrayal as most of you know.

Finally, to further my support of this right which I consider to be so very important, I am looking to become a life member of GOA and possibly JPFO as well.

I really do not see the point in the slander of the GOA, NRA, or JPFO. Personally, like I said earlier, I plan to be a member of all three. Hedging my investments- seems like a good idea to me!
 
H.R. 2640 forbids the VA from reporting vets to the NICS, unless certain criteria are met. H.R. 2640 also sets up a mechanism whereby those who were erroneously placed in the NICS registry, may get relief and have their names removed.

All this new proposed legislation (S. Amnd. 3167 to S. 2969) does is to have those names removed without the veterans themselves having to go to the trouble and expense of applying to the appeals process.

H.R. 2640 disarms no one, least of all veterans. The GOA was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

TFL Rangmaster said:
Bart you just don't listen, in the PRESENT TENSE, veterans who are given a financial guardian ARE being disarmed. Did you hear me that time? You didn't even mention the financial guardian issue in your posts.
He hasn't?
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Veterans have been disarmed over the past decade (PAST TENSE); but the bill the NRA supported (H.R. 2640) NOW makes that illegal unless the conditions listed above are met. Once again, there is ZERO evidence offered in your news link that veterans are currently being disarmed (PRESENT TENSE). If you have the evidence, then how about offering it instead of trying to weasel out of your earlier intemperate and libelous statement?
Just exactly where is this evidence that veterans are today being disarmed unlawfully? It is you, Rangmaster, who have made the accusation. It is upon you to factually provide the information to substantiate your case. You have failed to do this.

Anyone can make accusations. Not every accusation can be backed up with facts. Failure to provide the factual information, as the basis of your accusation, detracts from any credibility you may have had to begin with. Since you are new to this board, you start out with little credibility to begin with. With your first post, you have squandered whatever credibility you may have had.
 
Not only that; but even if you could find one veteran who has been disarmed without a finding that they were a danger to themselves or others since H.R. 2640 passed, you would still be in the unenviable position of explaining how a bill that specifically forbids that behavior by law somehow "facilitated" that person being added to NICS.

Do you even start to see how deep of a hole you have dug yourself reasoning-wise?
 
GOA is not taking in lavish amounts of money and not paying its officers lavish amounts of salaries/benefits IMHO.

This is true... according to the Form 990, GOA has rarely taken in more than $2 million in revenue for any given year.

However, one thing to keep in mind when reading Form 990s (for ANY non-profit) is "What businesses are receiving those expenses?"

For example, GOA's FY2005 Form 990 shows that the only officer who received a salary was Larry Pratt ($65k/yr not including his additional $30k/yr salary as chief of the related Gun Owner Foundation 501(c)(3)) and every other officer received no compensation. However, looking at expenses, they spent $484k on "Information and Public Service", $304k on the Newsletter, $17k on legal defense, and $786k on "Membership Services"

One thing I would want to know (and this applies to the NRA or any pro-2A group just as much as GOA) is whether any directors, officers, or employees of GOA own the businesses that GOA is spending money with. Because when you consider those numbers, the share of actual revenue that an officer receives may be considerably more than their salary indicates. Even then, that isn't necessarily a bad sign as long as the organization is receiving good value for its money (if a 2A group was paying $304k/yr for a newsletter and the last time they had put out a news letter was 1990, I would be concerned regardless of whether there was an interested officer).
 
So give me the names of the veterans who have been put on the bill since the bill became law. There is a way veterans can have thier name removed from the list by adjudication.

There were a lot of names put on the list by the VA before the bill became law.

I draw a disability from the VA and my name isnt on the list. :confused:
 
"they spent $484k on "Information and Public Service"

Do you think he's paying himself $10,000 for every one of those informative e-mails he sends out?

:)

John
 
NRA and GOA are different organizations with differing methods and goals. I'm a benefactor NRA member but also longtime GOA member. GOA does some things that the NRA does not do. The GOAs website and emails are good at the type of grass roots things that NRA does not always do. GOA site has legislative actions that allow easily sending emails, letters to reps, senators, etc. They also frequemtly send those postcard things that you can send to your reps, etc.

GOA also, I think, sponsors in some way Downsize DC. org.
 
>>The problem is either Tom hasn't done any research besides nra press releases or he is lying <<

Ya know, I think "Hey, Tom, what did you mean by that?" would have sufficed.

As pointed out, that was a recorded show from January.

But, for those who don't know, i take the NRA to task fairly often, but I do encourage all gun owners to belong. It's the group that Congress listens to.

Not perfect, but effective.

The NSSF has become a powerful force, too, but most gun owners don't know much about it.

The folks here have answered the particulars on this issue very well.

Bottom line on gun groups -- join one, join a bunch, but then do something more. Just belonging isn't enough.

This fight for gun rights will go on long past our lifetimes. You are either in the fight, or you are a spectator wondering "what happened?"
 
I understand Robert but those returns just don't look that suspicious to me.

Anyone's return could raise suspicious possibilities but the Form 990's for 2004 and 2006 just don't look bad to me. If I was, hypothetically, asked whether or not I would like to examine those returns I would say "no".

I belong to the NRA and you, Al and other posters have given good info. on the Bill. So I think GOA is wrong on this one but it sure doesn't seem like they are living lavishly off of gross receipts from what I saw on their Form 990.

Sure, maybe some personal stuff or sideline businesses benefit the Pratts but I don't see that as abusive from the numbers on the Forms 990 for 2004 and 2006. Just a judgment call on my part I could be wrong.

Robert: Do you think it is justified to call GOA a crooked organization when looking at the numbers on those returns? I say this is a small organization with only nickel and dime amounts possibly at issue.
 
Robert: Do you think it is justified to call GOA a crooked organization when looking at the numbers on those returns?

Assuming you were talking to me, you can't really tell much by those returns other than the officers of GOA are not receiving exorbitant salaries and GOA is not spending outlandish amounts on services.

My point was merely that the Form 990 was not the greatest tool for evaluating how wisely or well your favorite non-profit was spending its money. There are lots of ways to direct money to a particular individual that will not show up on a Form 990 ("consulting" is one popular way).

A good non-profit should disclose WHO it is spending money with independent of the Form 990.
 
Won't say anything bad about the NRA or the GOA. However, I do remember Little Grit's was all over apologizing for S&W when they knuckled under to the Clinton administration.
 
This thread started as a "calling out" of one of our members. This is bad form and is frowned upon by staff.

We let it run though, if only to allow Guntalk (Tom Gresham) an opportunity to respond. He has now done so, and with a lot of class in my book.

I'm going to close it now before it goes further from the high road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top