National Assoc. of Realtors
This is a discussion on National Assoc. of Realtors within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The National Association of REALTORS is the largest trade organization in the world with over 700,000 members. Not all real estate licensees are members of ...
October 11th, 2006 02:54 PM
The National Association of REALTORS is the largest trade organization in the world with over 700,000 members. Not all real estate licensees are members of the NAR. As a member of the NAR (and subsequently the state and local associations), they must subscribe to a strict code of ethics. That's what sets a REALTOR apart from your typical licensee.
The local association usually controls the local Multiple Listing Service, which is an important tool in selling and buying real estate. In order to have access to MLS, membership is required in NAR.
Other than the Code of Ethics, which are guidelines to ethical behavior with regard to clients, customers and other members, NAR does not set rules or regulations with regard to how a practioner conducts business.
There are a multitude of benefits for the practioner to be a member and a multitude of benefits for clients and customers that deal with REALTOR members when conducting business.
State regulatory agencies control licensing and provide rules and regulations on how licensees conduct business in each individual state. This includes the license process, minimum educational requirements, disciplinary action for bad apples and some protection to the consumer.
It's not necessary to make a big deal out of NAR's anti-gun stance. In today's litigious society, NAR won't go out on a limb and suggest CCW. Somebody, BG or innocent bystander would surely sue regarding a shooting.
There is no official rule from NAR prohibiting firearms. It is simply the content of their educational material regarding REALTOR safety.
Abide by your own state's CCW regulations and don't worry about what anybody else's opionion is.
We carry for our personal safety and the safety of those we cherish. Nothing more, nothing less.
October 11th, 2006 02:54 PM
October 11th, 2006 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by Biloxi Bersa
I think it is worth making a big deal out of it. If they don't want to get sued, they can just say nothing about the option of concealed firearm carry. But that's not what they did; they took up an advocacy position.
Who is to say that they won't be sued by someone who took their ANTI-gun advice, and was defenseless against a rapist posing as a real estate client, and got raped and beaten bloody? That person could say, "B-but the NAR told me I shouldn't carry a gun for protection; I considered doing it, but I took their advice and it got me hurt when I couldn't defend myself as I otherwise might have been able to."
So I don't buy this malarky about how they advocate against carrying guns to save themselves from lawsuits; I think it's plainly and simply the pushing of an anti-gun agenda from yet another source.
I have never seen Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, or Disc Golf Association, or United States Parachute Association, or International Guild of Knot Tyers, have anything to say YEA or NAY about carrying concealed weapons. THEY are the ones not exposing themselves to lawsuits. Why didn't NAR just say nothing?
October 11th, 2006 03:39 PM
Peacefuljeffrey, why don't you ask the lawyers for NAR why they don't say anything? Certainly the "members" of the "organizations" you listed in your post don't necessarily put themselves in situations where they meet complete strangers in obscure locations, so carrying a weapon is nothing they would ever have to concern themselves about.
Just remember that NAR, as the largest trade organization in the world, does exert a tremendous amount of political influence on local, state and national politics.
I guess it would be interesting to examine their PAC donations over the years and see how contributions went to pro- and anti-gun politicians. But I suspect that most of their political influence has more to do with private property ownership issues, economic issues and things like that versus singling out the pros and cons of gun ownership. I know from personal experience that their PAC only supports politicians that support the National Association of REALTORS and private property rights.
Politicians, in order to get elected, have to be all things to all people. I would submit that there are many politicians that take money both from NAR and NRA.
There are many, many more individuals and organizations that are much more vocal and much more adamant about restricitng the 2nd adament than NAR.
The suggestion that someone would sue because they were encouraged NOT to carry proves my point about what a litiguous society in which we live.
October 11th, 2006 04:09 PM
Thank you ma'am
Originally Posted by Linda
By kentuckycarry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: July 22nd, 2009, 12:11 PM
By Agave in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 8th, 2008, 07:02 AM
By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: November 30th, 2008, 08:17 AM
By shawn45 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 26th, 2008, 12:54 PM
By mrreynolds in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: November 14th, 2007, 06:25 PM