Richardson's philosophy was laid out explicitly in his book Confrontational Politics, which argued that political fights are contests of competing ideology — not negotiations to be managed. That worldview became GOA's operating doctrine.

That framing explains a lot about how GOA behaves in D.C. — and why it drives the NRA's institutional types crazy. If you believe every "reasonable compromise" is just a ratchet clicking one direction, you end up with a very different lobbying strategy than if you believe half a loaf is worth protecting.

GOA frames its mission around reclaiming rights already lost, not just defending the current status quo — a distinction that shapes how it chooses legislative and legal battles.

This is the part that actually matters to me at a practical level. Most gun rights organizations are playing defense. The NFA, the Hughes Amendment, the whole machine gun registry situation — those aren't positions GOA is willing to call a baseline. Whether they can actually move the needle backward is a different question, but the posture itself is worth something.

GOA has publicly criticized the NRA for supporting the Hughes Amendment (1986 machine gun registry closure), handling of bump stock legislation, and a pattern of accepting legislative half-measures.

The bump stock thing specifically — I've had that conversation at the LGS counter more times than I can count. A lot of NRA members were genuinely blindsided by that one. GOA's critique isn't just noise; there's a documented pattern there and shooters who've been around long enough have watched it play out more than once.

What's one specific piece of legislation — federal or state — where you think a no-compromise position actually changed the outcome, versus situations where you think it just meant losing with your principles intact?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team