It's the time of year when we voting members of the National Rifle Association have the duty to vote for the Board of Directors and, if put before us, changes to the bylaws. This year it seems that we need to vote for some wholesale changes in the Board and zero changes in the bylaws.
Jeff Knox (son of Neal Knox, for those who aren't aware of that fact), writes in a piece at Ammoland exactly why you need to vote "HELL NO!".
There is a bit of discussion on a post at Of Arms and the Law. Jeff Knox chimes in there as well.
Dean Weingarten at Gun Watch has some analysis on the impact of the changes. If you're a voting member, you might pay particular attention to his technical advice on how to cast your vote.
Finally, No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money has a roundup of endorsements for the NRA Board. While it shouldn't substitute for your own research, it can be a starting point or validation--or neither.
For what it might be worth to you, I agree with the advice to vote "No" on the bylaw changes. While some of them are fluff, there are some in there that will inevitably make it harder for NRA members to have the level of input into the organization that we are accustomed to having.
As far as voting on the Board of Directors, while I haven't gotten far into my research, I'm leaning heavily toward voting against any SOB who currently sits on the board. This is based on the unanimous recommendation by the BOD for a "Yes" vote on the bylaw changes. To me it says they either agree that members need to have less input, or they didn't realize what was going on and therefore aren't competent to be on the board. While I'm well aware that I may be voting for very few of those running after all is said and done, I'm good with that.
It seems that we are going to be defending our rights from attacks in every direction. Stay alert, and don't get tired.