A warning for all NBRSA Members

J

James A. Kelbly

New member
After reading Gene’s response to the banning of Rodney Brown, I would caution all NBRSA members that you better be careful what you say about the current NBRSA Board of Directors and how they conduct business. It was quite apparent in Gene’s letter that you are not allowed to have an opinion and express it to others that does not go along with the NBRSA BOD. You will be banned for life. Sure does not seem like the American way.

If in the past this was used by NBRSA BOD many people would have been banned. I have heard my whole life hate and discontent coming from NBRSA members about NBRSA ranges, Directors and Presidents; it is part of being an official of anything in life. It is called your First Amendment rights. I think the BOD needs to get a thicker skin. Had the BOD let Rodney spread his hate and discontent with no action and just ignored him, it would have gone away like most other members who have spread hate and discontent did. What I find really interesting is we here have not heard one thing about the hate and discontent that was being spread out west, well now everyone has thanks to NBRSA BOD.

Seriously what did the NBRSA BOD think the Browns were going to do, just roll over and go away like Gene said? I am sure if someone disrespected Gene or Gene’s wife, Gene would be telling everyone his side of the story. Wait a minute, isn’t that what Gene is doing now, only he has some power that gets people banned.

Now because of what the NBRSA BOD did, it sure looks, even though they cut the cancer, it looks like the cancer did not go into remission. Matter of fact I am betting the cancer will grow.

I personally am not satisfied in Gene’s response, he stated he would not answer any questions on this forum and he would only take calls personally. Seems like Gene does not want to have to deal with us, I wonder if Gene wishes me and others would just go away as well. Sorry not going to happen. I have been involved in NBRSA for the 55 years of my life and over 40 years as a paying member. Am I worried about getting banned, sure I am, but it is my right according to our rulebooks to be able to voice my opinion. Remember that part about American values and way of life. Well the first amendment, gives me this right, same as it does Rodney Brown, getting rid of Audrey Brown may have been correct, but getting rid of Rodney because he has an opinion is not right.

If America right now went as the NBRSA BOD did, then all those against President Trump would be banned from their American citizenship. No I don’t agree with liberals, but they do have the right to their opinion and are still American citizens. Maybe the NBRSA BOD should remember this in future and their past decision on banning someone for life from OUR organization.

If this is the beginning of a “New Day Dawning for NBRSA”, it could be a long day!

Jim
 
Thank you!

Thank you Mr. Kelby for stating so eloquently the feelings of many of us in the NBRSA. My one question for the NBRSA is: How is the smooth transition to the new administration coming along? Rodney Brown is a man of honor and I have enjoyed his company at shoots across the west. I hope he continues to shoot Benchrest.
 
My Two Cents (exactly what it's worth)

I only have two things to say about this whole matter:

1. Freedom of speech is a double edged sword, except (supposedly) where government is concerned. The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot control where and what you say, and cannot punish you afterwards for doing so. Anywhere else, what you say and do has consequences, which should be pointed out to today's athletes. You can say or do whatever you want but you ARE accountable for what you said and did.

2. This seems to be a case involving slander - what the BOD said happened vs. what the Browns say happened. Unfortunately, the spreading of half-truths or even outright lies seems to have become commonplace these days; too many people will say anything to convince others to support their positions or causes. In my opinion, from reading Mr. Brown's post, their reactions were inappropriate regardless of the cause for Ms. Brown's parting. However, I can also believe that the resulting actions may have seemed inappropriate to them. This whole affair is very upsetting; I suggest we go out and enjoy a little shooting contest to take our minds off of it. That means no further discussion!
 
Good night and good luck

As many people remember walter cronkite
Mcpo white ...wagons east corvettes west
Hey just think their won't be a rush to get handicap parking at the shoots..Scotty
 
Really Jim, that's how you feel? Ok, to each their own.

I'm not worrying about total inconsequential concerns in the big picture of my life!
 
Obstnate...

Way to go Lee, when you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot!

Larrry
 
James A. Kelbly said:
It was quite apparent in Gene’s letter that you are not allowed to have an opinion and express it to others that does not go along with the NBRSA BOD
Click to expand...

Jim, the way I read Gene's post, the real issue was not that Rodney expressed his opinion, it was "his continued lying and spreading of hate and discontent and his encouragement to other members to...resign[] and join[] other organizations." Surely, you don't think Rodney should have done all that without consequences?

How do we know he did all that? Because Gene said, "We took testimony from people about the things Rodney was spreading. This is not hearsay it was testimony from people that heard it directly from Rodney." Furthermore, he seems to suggest that due process was afforded Rodney because he "was encouraged to attend the Nationals but chose not to." He also reminded us that the "board meeting is not a court of law!!"

So, there you have it -- Guilty!

BTW, I believe Gene understands tuners better than he does hearsay, and it would be interesting to know whether Rodney knew he was going to be "on trial" when he chose not to attend. Also, I'm thankful the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments stand between me and the gov't, and that the hearsay rules are adhered to in a courtroom. Although the BOD meeting was not a "court of law," it's regrettable that those two bedrock principles of the American justice system seem to have been ignored.
 
Last edited:
Lee Hachigian said:
Really Jim, that's how you feel? Ok, to each their own.

I'm not worrying about total inconsequential concerns in the big picture of my life!
Click to expand...

It's real easy to tell the guys that don't know Rodney by their comments on this forum. I guess it's okay to call another shooters career down the tubes "inconsequential" I don't! Like Larry said Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot??
 
Well said Jim
I've been at the NRA f- class nationals for the past 2 weeks. I don't get done shooting till Sunday. Then I'll find time to give a response and maybe a few corrections to his response that were wrong.
I still believe they would do anything to keep him off the world team. Drain the swamp.
 
I'd suggest if you're unhappy with the decision to ban Rodney Brown. Make a formal request to your Regional director for an agenda item to reenstate his NBRSA membership. Get support from members in your region. Make the BOD aware of how the membership feels about on the subject. Bitching about it won't change anything.

Bart
 
Bart said:
I'd suggest if you're unhappy with the decision to ban Rodney Brown. Make a formal request to your Regional director for an agenda item to reenstate his NBRSA membership. Get support from members in your region. Make the BOD aware of how the membership feels about on the subject. Bitching about it won't change anything.
Click to expand...

At best, how long would that take? And in the meantime, the World Team leaves Rodney behind? I'd suggest that, if the BOD did not offer him due process or if it relied upon hearsay, the BOD should rescind its decision and reinstate him immediately, until it can offer him a fair hearing.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest that, if the BOD did not offer him due process and if it relied upon hearsay, the BOD should rescind its decision and reinstate him immediately, until it can offer him a fair hearing.
Click to expand...

It didn't sound like hearsay to me..., and I don't hear Rodney denying any of what Gene posted.
 
Lee Hachigian said:
It didn't sound like hearsay to me..., and I don't hear Rodney denying any of what Gene posted.
Click to expand...

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801, and consider:

-- under (c), the statements are hearsay;

-- under (d)(1), the statements do not fall within the exception from from hearsay; and

-- under (d)(2), I'm not sure Rodney's statements fall within that exception because he was not a "party" to the hearing. As noted in the "Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules" (at Subdivision (d)(2) Admissions), "Admissions by a party-opponent are excluded from the category of hearsay on the theory that their admissibility in evidence is the result of the adversary system." Here, since Rodney, presumably, was not aware of the hearing, I think a good argument can be made that he was not a "party" in an "adversary system"; thus, the exception at (d)(2) is not applicable.

But, if by some STRETCH, his statements are not hearsay, the fact that he, apparently, was not afforded due process (which includes the right to tell his story and cross-examine the witnesses) makes the reliance on those statements VERY suspect.

As for us not "hear[ing] Rodney deny[] any of what Gene posted," that's probably irrelevant.

Is This a Good Analogy? Curly and Larry go running to Daddy saying "Mo just called us stupid" -- so, based solely on that information, Daddy busts Mo's chops.
 
Last edited:
Why is this so important to you?

Hunter, I am asking you this question.

You must be an attorney. No one else would devote so much time to something that doesn't concern them, that they do not have all the facts about. And you write like one too....

Either let Rodney defend himself, or let this sleeping dog alone, you aren't helping BR any with this witch hunt for non-existant witches. People asked for the facts, Gene and the BOD made their decision on the facts, I am sorry they didn't consult you first to see if they followed all the rules as you see them. Apparently they did follow the rules in the NBRSA docs, which, is all that matters.

If you don't like it, as Bart said, then take it up with your regional Director. Oh, but wait.... you aren't a member yet are you......
 
Last edited:
Why is it so important to you?

MikeE said:
Hunter, I am asking you this question.

You must be an attorney. No one else would devote so much time to something that doesn't concern them, that they do not have all the facts about. And you write like one too....

Either let Rodney defend himself, or let this sleeping dog alone, you aren't helping BR any with this witch hunt for non-existant witches. People asked for the facts, Gene and the BOD made their decision on the facts, I am sorry they didn't consult you first to see if they followed all the rules as you see them. Apparently they did follow the rules in the NBRSA docs, which, is all that matters.

If you don't like it, as Bart said, then take it up with your regional Director. Oh, but wait.... you aren't a member yet are you......
Click to expand...

OK, I don't come on here much, but I've followed this thread....... and it's shown me yet again why my interest is far from piqued.

(and yes, I've been a member of both NBRSA and IBS and even have a few fake wooden plaques. Of which I'm proud)

You asked "why is it important to you?"

Well, I'm not Hunter and in fact some of the last few posts I've made here were arguing with the man.......

That said, I guess if you have to ask, you've answered your own question.

For some.







-Mr Banks, "and get that piano tuned!"

-Mrs Banks "but Dear, you don't even play?!"

-Mr Banks "that My Dear is entirely beside the point!"

from Mary Poppins, the movie
 
Freedom

I have very little to say, but would like to make a few quick points.

First of all, I really like Rodney. Mainly because I consider him an all around good guy.

The problem I have with the decision is simple. I do understand that there can be consequences for the things we say, however, we do live in a country where for the most part , we have the right to speak our minds. This includes speaking negative about others if we choose. We all have, at one time or another, had a negative thing to say about a person, or group of people. There are times we say things in anger, and later wish we hadn't. When the BOD votes to punish someone. It is always important to look at their own lives, and determine if they have ever spoke in anger against others. People get upset, and people cool off.

If you look at the requirements below, you will see that Rodney must believe in the freedoms of our country. Rodney has the right to be upset and speak as he wishes, just like the rest of us. As for good character, we have all suffered in that dept. one time or another, but for the most part, Rodney and the rest of us do just fine. If Rodney has truly done anything wrong, then he can join the rest of us that also need forgiveness.

I will admit in front of all NBRSA members that there has been times that I have spoken in a negative manner about Obama. I have no doubt that other members including the BOD have done the same. Should all Americans that have spoken in a negative manner concerning our highest government lose their citizenship?

Individual Members must be individuals of good character, must be friendly to the United
States of America, and must honestly believe in the American way of life and principles of
FREEDOM.

Seems to me that if Rodney didn't exercise his freedom, he would be breaking the rules.

Michael
 
Last edited:
MikeE said:
Why is this so important to you? Hunter, I am asking you this question.

... No one else would devote so much time to something that doesn't concern them, that they do not have all the facts about.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the Good Samaritan stopped?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top