PDA

View Full Version : Must Issue CCW, Why Not in CA?


Boxer
08-17-2008, 10:17 PM
If 40 states have must issue CCW or close to that, why do we not have it here in CA? Is this something that can get put on a ballot or are we subject to our gun grabbing state legislators and senators to do the deed, which means it will never happen.

nobs11
08-17-2008, 10:23 PM
I suspect that there are a lot of small battles to be fought and won and there is likely stuff going on behind the scenes. Even if there were a remote possibility that something like "shall issue" makes it to the ballot, most Californians would vote against it. The majority will not support it, that is a fact. It seems the way to achieve pro-2A victories in this state is to stay under the radar.

bohoki
08-17-2008, 10:24 PM
its so they can deny people even if they are fully qualified

power is never relinquished it must be taken

mblat
08-17-2008, 10:30 PM
If 40 states have must issue CCW or close to that, why do we not have it here in CA? Is this something that can get put on a ballot or are we subject to our gun grabbing state legislators and senators to do the deed, which means it will never happen.

We can get it on the ballot if we manage to raise what about a million bucks? However I would think that it would go down in flames. California being what it is - no shall issue CCW bill will pass any time soon. Any best hope is some kind of federal bill or multiple court cases.....

nicki
08-17-2008, 10:37 PM
We will not get a "shall issue" through our state legislatures, and I don't think "shall issue" would pass on the ballot in this state.

That being said, I do believe progress can be made, but it will be a ground war in every county.

The reality is that in shall issue states, the issuance rate is roughly 1 to 2 percent of the adult population, the reality is everyone isn't carrying guns.

What this means is ccw is not a large issue, it is a sub issue in regard to gun rights.

California's ccw system may be able to be attacked for "equal protection" violations, but it will be a war.

The Heller case will help on ccw in this and the other non issue states, but it will take some time.



Nicki

G17GUY
08-17-2008, 10:37 PM
Whats the million bucks pay for?

Librarian
08-17-2008, 10:52 PM
Whats the million bucks pay for?
Darn little.

We'd need a bigger campaign than the Indian Gaming initiatives (94, 95, 97, 97) last February, because CCW is an emotional issue, not a fight between two commercial interests.

The special interests here spent about 70 million in support, 50 million to oppose. See Secretary of State (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/).

bwiese
08-17-2008, 11:09 PM
We can get it on the ballot if we manage to raise what about a million bucks?

If it only took $1Mil that'd be a song & a dance.

$75Mil for starters. Ballot propositions are in the big time leagues with big money insurance, tobacco and union issues.

Getting on the ballot is just for a start.
Getting a *chance* of winning after that requires huge numbers of TV & newspaper $ads$.

N_S
08-17-2008, 11:17 PM
The problem isn't so much our legislators. California is a one-of-a-kind-case where voters have almost (key word:almost) as much influence as the politicians. If there's a petition and enough signatures we can put just about anything on a ballot.

The problem is convincing the overwhelming left-wing majority in this state to vote for it.

mblat
08-17-2008, 11:17 PM
If it only took $1Mil that'd be a song & a dance.

$75Mil for starters. Ballot propositions are in the big time leagues with big money insurance, tobacco and union issues.

Getting on the ballot is just for a start.
Getting a *chance* of winning after that requires huge numbers of TV & newspaper $ads$.

I meant that it would take a million just to get it on the ballot. After that - one can safely assume that union money would go against such proposition and that is probably other 50-75 millions like you said.

chris
08-17-2008, 11:21 PM
would'nt a federal reciprocity law be better for us in this state? kind of like a drivers license all drivers licences are honored by all states.

i would tend to think if it was federally mandated to honor them. would it not force this state to recognize them?

Bad Horse
08-17-2008, 11:32 PM
would'nt a federal reciprocity law be better for us in this state? kind of like a drivers license all drivers licences are honored by all states.

i would tend to think if it was federally mandated to honor them. would it not force this state to recognize them?

Sure, it would be great. Nancy Pelosi would be happy to bring it to a vote. :cool:

I agree it would cost $1m to get on the ballot, and I think it would be impossible to pass, but I don't think there's be nearly as much money against it as some of the posters have written. The Indian gamboling initiatives were about money. The tribes stood to make billions, the Las Vegas casinos stood to loose billions, so they were both ready to spend 10s of millions to support and oppose it.

A CCW initiative would have a lot of emotion, there would be people very worked up about it on both sides. But there wouldn't be a lot of money to be made on either side of it. The gun stores and manufacturers would make a tiny little bit if it passed. Nobody would make more money if it lost (OK, maybe the cops get more overtime from higher crime.)

So I don't think it would be that expensive. But I also think we would fail. I think the best shot we have is through Heller in the federal courts.

bwiese
08-17-2008, 11:47 PM
It'll take quite a bit more than $1M to get on the ballot, reliably.

Getting an issue on the ballot in a reliable, professional fashion requires the use of paid signature gatherers spread throughout the state. Additionally, these folks must get (say) 15+% or more extra signatures over the limit just to cover invalid ones, errors, etc. Since there will be challenges from opponents figure on some chunk of $$ for legal support team & their travel costs.

Gray Peterson
08-18-2008, 1:20 AM
1 million dollars is better spent on:

1) Fully funding the legal team that'll challenge the BS laws.

2) Unseating anti-gun morons like Don Perata in the primaries

Etc etc etc.

The problem is that California's "gun culture" is anywhere near as strong as the surrounding states, as most of the activists left the state years ago (and there was no Heller on the horizon). Myself, I'd like to see an RKBA proposition a decade from now, after we get anywhere from 1 to 2 million CCW license holders rather than the current 40,000, and legalized loaded open carry statewide, to expose people to the fact that firearms owners are not dangerous terrorists.

Boxer
08-18-2008, 6:16 AM
Good thing for us that Columbus wasn't afraid to sail off the edge of the earth. Maybe too soon maybe not, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Will the NRA or CRPA help on this matter?

bulgron
08-18-2008, 7:14 AM
Myself, I'd like to see an RKBA proposition a decade from now, after we get anywhere from 1 to 2 million CCW license holders rather than the current 40,000, and legalized loaded open carry statewide, to expose people to the fact that firearms owners are not dangerous terrorists.

How in the world are we supposed to get 1 to 2 million CCW holders in this state, given our currently really goofy gun laws?

Crazed_SS
08-18-2008, 7:45 AM
I actually think a CCW initiative would have a good chance here. This state isnt as far left as everyone thinks. Heck, we have a Republican governor.. and remember when Prop 187 passed?

Glock22Fan
08-18-2008, 8:12 AM
Heck, we have a Republican governor . . .

We do?

</sarcasm>

yellowfin
08-18-2008, 8:36 AM
A CCW initiative would have a lot of emotion, there would be people very worked up about it on both sides. But there wouldn't be a lot of money to be made on either side of it. The gun stores and manufacturers would make a tiny little bit if it passed. Actually it's been in the news a lot that gun stores make LOTS of money from increases in CCW holders.

As for the hypothesis that voters don't want shall issue, do we know how many of them actually know what the law is now? I would bet most of those who think they oppose it don't know what the law is now, don't know what laws are like elsewhere, don't know anyone who is a firearms owner, probably don't know they can get out of state CCW's as it is and that people here have them, and maybe don't know that even owning a pistol is legal here at all in the first place. For someone who does know, chances are they DO want shall issue. It seems though that there's a thick barrier of nonsense to penetrate first.

We must break the barrier of nonsense propagated by the antis first. Stop making it be about right vs. left and instead about right vs. wrong. If we do that then we can win, but not until.

nicki
08-18-2008, 11:16 AM
Watching various propositions, big money is spent when there are opposing sides.

Many propositions that have passed overwhelmlingly probably had little spending.

An example was the Public Records Act constitutional amendment which passed with 83 percent of the vote.

That being said, public perception is everything. The general trend of voters is if they don't understand something, if they are confused, many will either not vote or vote no.

Fear is a big motivator which will either move people to vote for something or vote against something.

Generally gun rights is something that is a big deal to "conservatives and libertarians", but not to most liberals, at least not yet.

The reality is we don't have to get all liberals to our side, we just need to get some, and that is a key.

If we get pockets of liberals over to our side, we pick up the political middle as a bonus. People see the left and the right fight over everything, but when they see something that has support on both sides of the political spectrum, many just fall in line.

Many people just go with the flow, that is reality.

So how do we get liberals to our side, well first we need to understand what makes them tick. We can't be knee jerk, in fact, we need to politely listen to them, don't have to agree, just listen.

What we need to understand is where they are coming from, then tailor our goals to "their needs". Just as most on this board are not lock step NEO CONS, not every liberal is a LOCK STEP PROGRESSIVE.

Generally many social liberals are very concerned about constitutional rights and many have not put it together that without the means(guns) to enforce their rights, they have no rights.

Many social liberals view that before the 1960's, Only a few Americans had rights, many were 2nd class citizens and they view the Federal government and court actions since the 1960's as a good thing:eek:

The Rhetoric against conservatives is that they want to roll back women's and minority rights.

People in urban areas have no gun culture, as such, when they watch the nightly news, all they see is carnage.

They look at other countries and they see lower crime rates, at least they were lower a few years back. Hear things have changed in England alot.:43:

It is the liberal value that the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few or individual that allows them to be willing to sacrifice innocent victims to crime with a societal policy of victim disarmanent(VD) because they view that taking weapons out of society will ultimately lead to a more civil society.

Liberals percieve themselves as peace makers and they see us Conservatives as war mongers.

Liberals think with their hearts, Conservatives think with their heads.

Liberals see themselves in a higher level because they reject violence, they see conservatives in a lower level because they will use violence.

Many Liberals can't see that at times violence is the only solution.

The short of it, we have alot of work to do in outreach to the left and it will be frustrating at times, but it is something that must be done in this state if we are going to make progress on gun rights.

Conservatives are leaving this state, there are some who believe that the legislature is deliberately making gun laws not because they will work, but to push more conservatives to leave thereby consolidating power for the left.

Our opponents will use fear, fear, fear. We can look at other states and we can see their game plans in advance.

CCW in itself is not a huge issue, but the way it is handled by the local sheriffs can be a huge issue, particularly if the ccw process creates the perception that the local sheriff is corrupt.

Some values that most people cherish is that "everyone is supposed to be equal under the law". Special treatment under the law is something that rubs most people the wrong way.

As a example, when LA Sheriff Baca tried to undermine Paris Hilton's jail sentence, the public outcry was immense.

The outcry against ccw is that "everyone will be carrying guns".

Well if our position was we are creating standards that while anyone can apply, we expect that our proposed standards will result in a issuance rate between 2 to 5 percent of the population, that doesn't translate into everyone will be carrying guns.

Our position is that we don't want everyone carrying guns, but sheriff's have abused their authority for personal gain, they have corrupted the political process, and undermined respect for the law by abusing their authority.

As such, since sheriffs have shown that they can't be trusted to fairly adminster a ccw system, we want to reform the law by eliminating their ability to abuse the system, hence, the so called "good cause" provides no public safety benefit and as such, needs to be stripped from the ccw process.

The current law allows sheriffs to require between 4 to 16 hours training in order to get a ccw permit.

Funny how the counties with the tightest good cause require the least training and the counties with the most open ccw process require the most training.

Calguns has formed a foundation for legal cases and I will make the suggestion that we need to form local groups in each county to do outreach.

I know there are NRA members councils and they are a resource, the problem is the NRA members councils have to consistently follow what the NRA tells them for organizational cohesion.

Each county in California is different, as such, local groups must have the ablity to adjust to the political climate they are in.

Michigan was a may issue state and a statewide ccw movement was started by 8 individuals. The organization grew to 50,000 people by the time they got their ccw reform law.

It was predicted that the streets of Detroit would run with blood, didn't happen. We have ccw in many large urban areas and it has not become a public safety issue and that is something we have to fall back on.

If California was shall issue, we would have probably about 500,000 to 1 million ccw permit holders.

If only 1 in 10 would pull their weight, we would have a organization of 50,000 to 100,000 people to make things happen.

If only 1 in 100 would do something on this, we would have a core group of 5000 to 10,000 to get things really rolling.

We have the classic question, which came first, the Chicken or the egg?

The reality is even in Gun Friendly counties, ccw is in jeopardy. A CCW permit is useless if you don't have a gun or ammo that you can carry.

Current CCW holders can lose their permits if a new sheriff comes to town and changes policy. Generally most sheriffs are wise enough to grandfather current permit holders, but not always.

In closing, this board is probably split between those who want to work to open up the ccw process in steps versus those who want to go "shall issue".

My personal take is simple, I view "Equality under the Law" as a foundational cornerstone value of our system of "the rule of Law".

"Good Cause" requirements make a mockery of "Equality under the Law", so IMO, it is a relic of "Jim Crow" and as such, it has got to go.

The power of who gets a ccw or any other type of government issued license/permit or beneifit and who doesn't is a power that no government official should have that they can perform on a selective and unequal basis, especially if they can do so in a way that gives them a personal gain.

This is a value by the way, I have used to flip liberals that I know over to my side on the issuance of ccw permits.

I spend alot of time in the SF Bay area, finding liberals is easy.

Nicki

Glock22Fan
08-18-2008, 11:25 AM
I would bet most of those who think they oppose it don't know what the law is now, don't know what laws are like elsewhere, don't know anyone who is a firearms owner, probably don't know they can get out of state CCW's as it is and that people here have them, and maybe don't know that even owning a pistol is legal here at all in the first place.

And, at the time they vote, most of them still won't know anything other than what they've read in the (anti-gun) media about blood flowing in the streets.

That being said, public perception is everything. The general trend of voters is if they don't understand something, if they are confused, many will either not vote or vote no.

Exactly. And anyone on our side wanting to mount a big informational campaign will be matched, dollar for dollar (and then some) by the likes of Soros.

It's a great idea, but I think (as me, not necessarily as TBJ) that it is a long, long way off happening.

M. D. Van Norman
08-18-2008, 12:47 PM
[W]hy do we not have [shall-issue CCW] here in CA?

Because Republicans in gerrymandered, politically safe districts will not introduce or sponsor shall-issue bills year after year, but Democrats in gerrymandered, politically safe districts continue to push restrictive gun-control bills year after year until they finally pass.

We’re told to elect more Republicans to create a more favorable political environment for RKBA reform, but we can’t do that because the two major parties have divided up the state into safe, gerrymandered districts to protect and maintain their power. Now, it seems that our only hope lies with the courts … or with the moving truck. The sages of CalGuns say that incorporation is coming soon, which could give us the leverage to get loaded open carry, which in turn could give us the leverage to force the concealed-carry issue.

Since I can’t elect any more Republicans even if I wanted to, I’ll have to go along with that plan. This means that my money will be going to NRA-ILA and/or the CalGuns Foundation in the near future. I will also support a pro-CCW sheriff in Orange County.

Or we could try to elect more Democrats and then pick up the pieces after they’ve run the state into bankruptcy. :43:

yellowfin
08-18-2008, 1:34 PM
And, at the time they vote, most of them still won't know anything other than what they've read in the (anti-gun) media about blood flowing in the streets.



Exactly. And anyone on our side wanting to mount a big informational campaign will be matched, dollar for dollar (and then some) by the likes of Soros.. And because we see that, we continue to do nothing and they keep the informational monopoly because we simply sit there and let them have it. We have got to break the cycle. We continue to lose battles we don't fight because we're--sadly with some justification--afraid of the cost of losing, a hinderance the other side doesn't share.

Screw Soros. He wants to spend gazillions of dollars spewing nonsense? HOW ABOUT WE STAND UP AND REFUTE IT FOR A *&^@ING CHANGE?!? Exactly how we allow that ghastly semblance of a supposed former human being to inhabit this country is beyond me. We have allowed this to be a one way dialogue.

Gray Peterson
08-18-2008, 2:02 PM
How in the world are we supposed to get 1 to 2 million CCW holders in this state, given our currently really goofy gun laws?

It won't happen with the current system. It'll take some court cases peeling away some of the laws involving carry: PC12031, PC626.9 etc.

Glock22Fan
08-18-2008, 2:07 PM
And because we see that, we continue to do nothing and they keep the informational monopoly because we simply sit there and let them have it.

I'm not sitting back doing nothing, and nor are many others on this board. However, you must pick your battles. A defeat in the wrong battle could be costly.

Keep up the information flow to the best of your ability. Teach people to shoot. Write to your newspapers and your politicians. Get involved with the NRA and other people working towards a solution.

And most of all, be realistic about your limitations.

BillCA
08-18-2008, 2:35 PM
Nicki makes some very good points (as usual).

How many CalGun members know a local TV or radio reporter? How many of you could call one up and say you'd be available to rebutt some anti-gun legislation? How many of you could distill your rebuttal points down to 30-second sound bites?

Start by sending emails to reporters who cover such news and offering a "counter viewpoint". If you have some kind of credentials in law, LE, military, etc. then so much the better. Cultivate those relationships so they'll come to you again.

With regards to changing the CCW picture in California, remember that logic does not appeal to the liberal-left. Emotion does. Painting the current system as poorly administered, often corrupt and designed to keep people defenseless appeals to those who believe the law should be "fair and equal". Emotional hits are scored when you show a victim who was injured because s/he was denied a permit even with excellent "good cause" or simply because the PD refused to issue any permits. More emotional hits can be scored by bringing forth favorite "special interests" -- the disabled man in a wheelchair who's been mugged three times or the gay/lesbian who has been attacked outside their home after being denied a permit.

Glock22Fan
08-18-2008, 3:01 PM
And to follow up on BillCA,

Don't forget that "the opposition" is ignorant. I have an anti-gun relative. Hearing my stepson telling me about a .223 he'd seen, she interrupted to complain that no-one needed a gun that could fire two hundred and twenty three rounds a minute. When we tried to explain, she walked off with her ears shut.

And then there was the case recently where a reporter was talking about this man armed with a 50 caliber high-powered assault rifle designed to bring down commercial airliners. Turned out the man was actually armed with a black powder muzzle loader.

These are the people we need to convince. Keep it simple.

Librarian
08-18-2008, 3:23 PM
And because we see that, we continue to do nothing and they keep the informational monopoly because we simply sit there and let them have it. We have got to break the cycle. We continue to lose battles we don't fight because we're--sadly with some justification--afraid of the cost of losing, a hinderance the other side doesn't share.

Screw Soros. He wants to spend gazillions of dollars spewing nonsense? HOW ABOUT WE STAND UP AND REFUTE IT FOR A *&^@ING CHANGE?!? Exactly how we allow that ghastly semblance of a supposed former human being to inhabit this country is beyond me. We have allowed this to be a one way dialogue.
How do we get it published?

And more to the point, how would we get anyone to READ it or LISTEN TO it?

I agree, misinformation is a serious problem and a major contributor to the laws we get and the legislators "we" elect. Fixing that is probably the fundamental change which will swing things onto a more rational course.

But most people genuinely DO NOT CARE about guns in any aspect. Since the only thing they usually see is crime stories, it's easier for an average person to conclude 'more guns must be bad, more people with guns must be bad'; there' s NO VALUE to an average person to invest the time to become better (and correctly) informed, and there's no way to distinguish good sources of information from bad sources for the few people who are not average in that regard. (This is not restricted to guns - see Bryan Caplan (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/) and the general discussions of rational voters. Now, he [I]does sayMy final remedy for voter irrationality, then, is for people who know more than the average voter to stop being so modest. When experts and those who heed them address a broader audience ó in the media, in their writings, or in a classroom ó they need to focus on the questions where experts and the public disagree, and clearly explain why the experts are right and the public is wrong. Thus, when economists get the publicís ear, they should not bore them with the details of national income statistics, or quibble with each other about marginal issues. They should challenge the publicís misconceptions about markets, foreigners, saving labor, and progress. If we could get a good forum ...).

BillCA
08-19-2008, 3:21 AM
How do we get it published?

And more to the point, how would we get anyone to READ it or LISTEN TO it?

By using the same kind of emotional appeal that the anti-gun lobby uses. You personalize the message. You find incidents where someone really needed a CCW to protect their family against a threat and were denied a permit. Let them describe how they lived in constant fear every day. And/or let them describe how they were injured or a loved one killed because they were denied the ability to protect themselves. Then launch into how the CCW game is played in California and the mindset of many CLEOs when it comes to self-protection. For example:

[Scene: Neatly dressed man shown from waist up, sitting in a nice living room, talking to the audience.]
On April 28th, 1998, my wife and I witnessed the murder of a rival gang member and two other people in a pizza parlor. We did our part as witnesses which led to their arrest. But after threating phone calls, having our car burned in our driveway, shots fired into our home, myself and my wife threatened at our jobs and threats to kill our children, we both applied for permits to carry a gun to protect our family. The police refused to even consider our applications. They said "Just call us if you have trouble." Well, we did.
On January 17th, 1999, as we drove home from church, we called police because a car with two gang members was following us. It took my wife three minutes to convince police it was a serious threat. Two minutes later, when traffic stopped one of them ran up to the right side of the car and started shooting. In seconds my wife and our 9 year old twins were dead and I was paralyzed for life. [camera zooms out showing speaker in a wheelchair] The police arrived nine minutes after the shooting was over.
Since then, I've found out that our local police chief has only issued six carry permits in the last five years, four of which are to rich business men or celebrities who can afford bodyguards. The other two were issued to government employees. But a citizen desperate to defend his family from street thugs can be told his reasons "aren't good enough". In 44 other states in this country, states that license their citizens to legally carry firearms, my family might still be alive. But California allows police to play politics with gun permits and deny citizens the right to protect themselves. They make it easy for criminals to prey on families like mine -- and yours.
[Show man picking up family photo and looking at it, longingly. Begin text and voice-over to support changes, vote, etc.]

Personalizing the message evokes an emotional response. You fan that response with statements or questions designed to build on it.

yellowfin
08-19-2008, 8:25 AM
^ one perfect candidate for such story would be the family slain by the illegal alien gang member that San Francisco a couple months ago. I'd bet everything that they weren't armed, probably either didn't know they could own a firearm and/or were dissuaded from trying. A big problem exists with finding people who were denied CCW's then attacked is that we don't know who the applicants are, there probably aren't many to pick from, they might not want to announce themselves for various reasons, and they may not want to drag up the story of being attacked for personal reasons...or they didn't survive it.

I suppose something that might be a little easier to find would be cases of multiple offenders where their last selection of victim was armed whereas previous ones were not, or two identical crimes, one thwarted in a good issuing county and the other given free targets in a non issuing county.

Anthonysmanifesto
08-19-2008, 10:30 AM
I think the ballot measure issue comes up at least once a week now and at times more often.

there seems to be alot of guess work here.

it shouldnt be.

emotional/ideaological issues dont have alot of natural donors and they dont go very far.

look at how many ideas failed to even qualify so far this year

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

now how much you want to bet half those that qualified ( or more) fail.

well luckily its all on this website. so lets all brush up since the history is so readily available, then debate the merits of legislating from the ballot box.

the last time the gun issue was on the ballot was 1982. Neither side has attempted this again. its expensive , unpredictable and takes scant resources away from the battle.

next try to find all of the committees with obscure names contributing to one side or another.

Librarian
08-19-2008, 12:25 PM
I quite like the CRPA campaign http://www.issues-views.com/images/Pro-gunGroupPhoto.jpg
It is/was simple and quick to read, but just a tad cluttered for a billboard; if one were driving, it would be hard to observe the diversity of the folks in the picture - an important aspect of the message - and the lettering is partially obscured. Good Idea, possibly Needs Improvement in execution.

It's even possible to get the billboards up in the Bay area - IIRC, I saw a couple around Emeryville.

I wonder how one can get a short (and repeated, for years) Public Service Announcement on KCET and KQED (respectively LA and SF public television). I wonder if they'd take a group of NRA volunteers for their pledge drives? The people who watch those stations include most of "our" active opposition, and some kind of showing that gun owners are 'like them' in many important aspects would be useful.

But I think the order of operation needs to be information campaign, measured opinion change, some kind of direct political action (ballot measure, legislative campaigns, etc.)

M. D. Van Norman
08-19-2008, 12:48 PM
You personalize the message. You find incidents where someone really needed a CCW to protect their family against a threat and were denied a permit. Let them describe how they lived in constant fear every day. And/or let them describe how they were injured or a loved one killed because they were denied the ability to protect themselves.Ö

I suspect that we would have serious trouble finding such a candidate. Anyone who faced an imminent threat and who actually considered arming himself or herself against it to the point of applying for a concealed-carry permit would probably carry anyway should the permit be denied.

leitung
08-19-2008, 6:53 PM
I see alot of young people are pro-gun, being as they were raised with video & computer games depicting guns they tend to be pro gun because they want to own the real thing. The problem is, they tend to vote for anti-gun people in politics because Obama and the lot have sold themselves as "cool" The problem is this generation is not in politics, the older 60's & 70's hippe types are the democratic leaders at the moment. Which are what the young pro-gun people are ignorantly voting for.

What we need is for the NRA to start targeting the younger generation to join, they need to break the steriotype that younger people have is that all NRA members are is a bunch of old war vets and redneck hunters. Then they could hopefully start teaching those younger voters to start voting for pro gun republican & libertarian canidates, instead of the obamanation.
With that, we could hopefully see more luck in getting shall issue CCW passed here in Cali.