But if they are monolithic then they can require people to join an organization that has nothing to do with that gun club? That sounds like awfully flawed reasoning. Why can't unions compel people to pay dues then? All employees want the protection that being in the union provides. Tell me an employee that doesn't want a lawyer free of charge, better wages, less risk of termination, and all the other benefits that come with unionization and collective bargaining.
That is my point. Regardless of whether the individual will want the benefits or not, the precedent has been set that an individual cannot be compelled to join a group (regardless of whether they want to or not) and that the group must compete for their membership.
I can't take someone who defends this seriously if they speak out in defense of right-to-work laws. The government can invalidate a privately-agreed to contract that requires unionization but a privately-agreed to contract which requires joining a group that proudly supports conservative causes is A-OK...the hypocrisy is ripe on that one.
Corral, you're a good man from all I can tell but I can't see how you can defend this one. In order to join a gun range you are required to join a separate organization entirely regardless of your agreement with the political views that they engage in. There are plenty of Democrats and liberals who enjoy shooting and want to use firearms for protecting themselves and those who are important to them but are enraged by the activities of the NRA. Now in order to join that gun range they are required to support the NRA both by their membership and/or financially.