PDA

View Full Version : California Rifle and Pistol Association


Matt C
12-17-2008, 1:22 PM
There has been quite a bit of criticism of the CRPA lately, much of it valid. I have taken issue with a few things myself, and I want to go over how CRPA is addressing these issues.

There are three main problems at the CRPA as I see it:

The "lobbyist" issue.

The "closed board" issue.

The "relevance" issue.


1. Gerry Upholt will be leaving the CRPA after this legislative session. He will train his replacement as necessary, and the replacement will be appointed by the board. CRPA may not even need a lobbyist in Sacramento; we may be served by a coordinator down in Fullerton who works with the NRA's lobbyist (Ed) in Sacramento and coordinates with activists (like us) on who we need to call/write/ect to make our presence known in Sacramento.

2. The CRPA is totally restructuring it's election and nomination process. Please read the following: http://www.crpa.org/showpages.aspx?pid=1448
If you are genuinely interested in serving on a CRPA committee and feel you are qualified to do so, send me an email and I will forward it to the right people. I personally plan to serve on the board next year. The board WILL be open to qualified applicants.

3. There is no doubt the the CRPA needs to focus on the issues that are most important to it's membership and CA gun owners in general. There is a lot of work to be done in this area, and I have been assured that board will be receptive to refocusing on those issues. I can also say that assuming I get a seat on the board (which seems almost certain), that you will have a strong voice there through me. Please post here any issues you would like specifically addressed.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 1:34 PM
I can also say that assuming I get a seat on the board (which seems almost certain), that you will have a strong voice there through me.

What qualifications do you have to be a board member of the CRPA and why do you think that you're qualified to address legislative and public policy concerns in Sacramento? Do you find it odd that CRPA would welcome you to the board and yet not ask Bill Wiese?

-Gene

bwiese
12-17-2008, 1:35 PM
BWO,

There are many of us that think CRPA actually DOES need a competent representative in Sacramento, one who works in harmony with the NRA staff. Just not populating the legislative liaison slot is not a fix, just an abandonment. We'd also be willing to pay for it (thru membership). We need not to move from negative to neutral, but from negative to forward.

While CRPA is supposedly the NRA's representative organization in CA, that hasn't turned out to be that way and I think we know who gets the heavy lifting done (as long as someone hasn't tied their shoelaces together).

Having multiple footprints of skilled folk alongside NRA staff "up there" during key timeframes can be extremely important and productive: one guy works on Senate, one on Assembly, or one on one group of legislators, another on a differing group, etc.

Having these varied folks have several non-NRA 'labels' on them is also important, especially if they have a large membership behind them. A polished CRPA with a good leg liaison in Sacto could aid in doing that. Fullerton is otherwise just a big white building without any real "presence".

NRA and COHA - with a prospective new, skilled CRPA liaison repping an organization starting to grow again - would be a formidable progun front and help offset the risk of damage Kathy Lynch/CAFR may still offer.

Right now we will have a very interesting legislative year given the pervasive budget situation and upcoming Nordyke. It'd be nice if extra (and competent) voices are dispersed up there, helping Ed & crew.

Fighting legal battles is important, but that's a secondary, postpartum fix: if bad gun bills can be killed, diluted or hacked up under the table by friendly parties before becoming law, legal efforts on other pressing matters won't be diluted.

Kestryll
12-17-2008, 1:42 PM
I have closed the previous threads on CRPA, let's keep the discussion to one thread.

As for the points brought up, I'm not sure the info on Gerry is accurate. I think he's around for longer then this Legislative session.

The BOD. I don't want to see a BOD Nominating Committee.
I want to see members able to nominate BOD members and then vote on them.
Frankly changing from this:
candidates for election to CRPA’s BOD were “vetted” for the election ballot by the CRPA’s Officers and the Executive Council who comprised the Nominating Committee.
To this:
The new bylaws require a secret ballot by the entire BOD through which seven directors are elected to the Nominating Committee.
is nothing more then changing the guard on the front door to keep the unwashed masses out.

This part does help but it is mooted by the above 'Nominating Committee':
Anyone interested in serving on the CRPA BOD/committees can simply submit their name and qualifications to the Nominating Committee for consideration.
Unless the membership can vote on BOD members it's still just the same closed 'club'

Relevance will be an issue as long as 1 and 2 are left unresolved.

Kestryll
12-17-2008, 1:51 PM
I don't necessarily have a problem with you being on the Board Matt but I do have questions of 'how' and 'why'. I can not help but feel that you are being seated as a token.
I would like to ask this in all seriousness, just as a dig or a jab but because I do not know.
What did CRPA do when you were in jail and/or facing charges?


I've said this elsewhere and I will repeat it here.
I will open a sub-forum specifically for CRPA to come in and talk with the members about their concerns and what real actions can be taken to address them.
I am offering to give them a venue to talk about things with very specific rules mandating civil and respectful discussion.
No bashing, no name calling and no obfuscation.
Just a place to talk and work out the iussues that stand between us.
Not to drop pre-typed memos on everyone but real conversation and discussion.

Calguns very often runs in real time so responses would be fairly prompt if given the chance. There can even be designated times for active discussion.
I have offered and continue to offer a place to discuss the concerns, issues and problems both sides have.
I have stated that it will have strict rules of civility and respect and given my guarantee on it.
Most of the concerns have been aired and the others will be when conversation commences.

Hopi
12-17-2008, 1:52 PM
Why do I feel that somebody is going to drop a satchel full of coins marked with the face of the Persian 'God-King' Xerxes?

BWO, this thread seems highly suspect, can you illuminate the path that affords this kind of confidence?...

I can also say that assuming I get a seat on the board (which seems almost certain), that you will have a strong voice there through me.

Matt C
12-17-2008, 3:38 PM
As for the points brought up, I'm not sure the info on Gerry is accurate. I think he's around for longer then this Legislative session.


He will be gone after this (2 year) session. I have that from the horses mouth. If it turns out not to be true, I'll be more outraged than anyone since I am giving my word on it.


The BOD. I don't want to see a BOD Nominating Committee.
I want to see members able to nominate BOD members and then vote on them.
Frankly changing from this:

To this:

is nothing more then changing the guard on the front door to keep the unwashed masses out.

This part does help but it is mooted by the above 'Nominating Committee':

Unless the membership can vote on BOD members it's still just the same closed 'club'


The Board is elected. The nominating committee is the board. Nothing is "Closed". There has to be some nominating committee, you can't have 100 names on the ballot, many of whom would be unqualified.

The other State NRA affiliates work the same way, there is nothing necessarily corrupt here. I would really like to know if someone has been trying to get on the board who was qualified for the position and was denied.


I don't necessarily have a problem with you being on the Board Matt but I do have questions of 'how' and 'why'. I can not help but feel that you are being seated as a token.


I won't be a token, if the board is not responsive I will be the first one calling for the NRA to find a new state affiliate. The why is because I think the CRPA news change, how is I am applying and I have been told they are receptive. The CRPA really does not want to alienate grassroots activists.


What did CRPA do when you were in jail and/or facing charges?


Good question. It's one I'll be sure to be asking, along with, where is the CRPA on Don Anderson? In any case the CRPA of the past does not have to be the CRPA of the future.


I will open a sub-forum specifically for CRPA to come in and talk with the members about their concerns and what real actions can be taken to address them.
I am offering to give them a venue to talk about things with very specific rules mandating civil and respectful discussion.
No bashing, no name calling and no obfuscation.
Just a place to talk and work out the iussues that stand between us.
Not to drop pre-typed memos on everyone but real conversation and discussion.


I think that's an excellent idea, and as soon as I have the authority to do so I will take you up on it.


Calguns very often runs in real time so responses would be fairly prompt if given the chance. There can even be designated times for active discussion.
I have offered and continue to offer a place to discuss the concerns, issues and problems both sides have.
I have stated that it will have strict rules of civility and respect and given my guarantee on it.
Most of the concerns have been aired and the others will be when conversation commences.

Again agreed, I see no reason why this should not happen.


Why do I feel that somebody is going to drop a satchel full of coins marked with the face of the Persian 'God-King' Xerxes?

BWO, this thread seems highly suspect, can you illuminate the path that affords this kind of confidence?...

Give me a little bit of faith, I'm sure as hell not going to betray calgunners, and I don't mind taking on the whole CRPA board by myself. That said, I want to work with the people who are on the board now. Remember these ARE people who have been working for RKBA, in some cases for longer than I've been alive. WITHOUT getting paid I might add.



There are many of us that think CRPA actually DOES need a competent representative in Sacramento, one who works in harmony with the NRA staff. Just not populating the legislative liaison slot is not a fix, just an abandonment. We'd also be willing to pay for it (thru membership). We need not to move from negative to neutral, but from negative to forward.


I'm open to that and I'm sure the board is as well. Eliminating the position is just one option, and remember the NRA would still have a rep there, unlike any other state... Right now I'm just throwing out options.


Fighting legal battles is important, but that's a secondary, postpartum fix: if bad gun bills can be killed, diluted or hacked up under the table by friendly parties before becoming law, legal efforts on other pressing matters won't be diluted.

Agreed 100%.

What qualifications do you have to be a board member of the CRPA and why do you think that you're qualified to address legislative and public policy concerns in Sacramento? Do you find it odd that CRPA would welcome you to the board and yet not ask Bill Wiese?


In particular I know a fair bit about IT, and I think I would fill a role on that committee well. I've also been involved in the shooting sports my whole life, and I've had a fair bit of experience with legal research and RKBA activism as well. By the way, nobody asked me to join. But lets not hijack this thread and make it about me.

The point is, and I know we have heard it before, let's give CRPA a chance. They ARE making improvements, even if those improvements are not everything everybody wants at this point. Lets see if the CRPA can address the issues that need to be addressed in it's soon to be current form, rather than continue fighting to alter it. If we don't see results, than I will be the first one calling for more reform.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 3:57 PM
He will be gone after this (2 year) session. I have that from the horses mouth. If it turns out not to be true, I'll be more outraged than anyone since I am giving my word on it.


Gerry told you he's gone in two years? Why do we have to have 2 more years of Sacramento mismanagement?

-Gene

Matt C
12-17-2008, 5:14 PM
Gerry told you he's gone in two years? Why do we have to have 2 more years of Sacramento mismanagement?

-Gene

Probably because he has a signed contract. I'm not sure that anything can be done about that that, but at least he will be gone in a fixed time period.

HowardW56
12-17-2008, 5:28 PM
OK, no more CPRA bashing on my part. I'll take a wait and see posture...

BWO, please keep us posted on any progress made.

Matt C
12-17-2008, 5:42 PM
OK, no more CPRA bashing on my part. I'll take a wait and see posture...

BWO, please keep us posted on any progress made.

Thank you, will do.

wildhawker
12-17-2008, 6:12 PM
I have closed the previous threads on CRPA, let's keep the discussion to one thread.

As for the points brought up, I'm not sure the info on Gerry is accurate. I think he's around for longer then this Legislative session.

The BOD. I don't want to see a BOD Nominating Committee.
I want to see members able to nominate BOD members and then vote on them.
Frankly changing from this:

To this:

is nothing more then changing the guard on the front door to keep the unwashed masses out.

This part does help but it is mooted by the above 'Nominating Committee':

Unless the membership can vote on BOD members it's still just the same closed 'club'

Relevance will be an issue as long as 1 and 2 are left unresolved.

Very well put, sir. Undoubtedly, these times call for highly competent and conscientious leadership; however, I'm not so sure that the process of opening the election will not create an unintended consequence of freshening the CRPA brain trust and creating a more enlivened and interested membership.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 6:21 PM
Probably because he has a signed contract. I'm not sure that anything can be done about that that, but at least he will be gone in a fixed time period.

You didn't answer my question. Did you discuss this with Gerry?

-Gene

artherd
12-17-2008, 7:02 PM
Probably because he has a signed contract. I'm not sure that anything can be done about that that, but at least he will be gone in a fixed time period.

Almost all contracts can be modified by both parties in writing.

oaklander
12-17-2008, 7:24 PM
OK - let's start now.

:)

There has been quite a bit of criticism of the CRPA lately, much of it valid. I have taken issue with a few things myself, and I want to go over how CRPA is addressing these issues.

There are three main problems at the CRPA as I see it:

The "lobbyist" issue.

The "closed board" issue.

The "relevance" issue.




Correct.

1. Gerry Upholt will be leaving the CRPA after this legislative session. He will train his replacement as necessary, and the replacement will be appointed by the board. CRPA may not even need a lobbyist in Sacramento; we may be served by a coordinator down in Fullerton who works with the NRA's lobbyist (Ed) in Sacramento and coordinates with activists (like us) on who we need to call/write/ect to make our presence known in Sacramento.


Two more years? That's not good. A lot of damage can be done in two years. Why don't they get rid of him now? Contracts can be changed, as Ben has pointed out.

2. The CRPA is totally restructuring it's election and nomination process. Please read the following: http://www.crpa.org/showpages.aspx?pid=1448
If you are genuinely interested in serving on a CRPA committee and feel you are qualified to do so, send me an email and I will forward it to the right people. I personally plan to serve on the board next year. The board WILL be open to qualified applicants.


I read the link, but I don't understand it. Can I run for the board? Or do I need to be "nominated" first?

3. There is no doubt the the CRPA needs to focus on the issues that are most important to it's membership and CA gun owners in general. There is a lot of work to be done in this area, and I have been assured that board will be receptive to refocusing on those issues. I can also say that assuming I get a seat on the board (which seems almost certain), that you will have a strong voice there through me. Please post here any issues you would like specifically addressed.

With all due respect Matt, your main claim to fame is being arrested for alleged (and 100 percent bogus) firearms violations. How does this qualify you to speak for Calguns?

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 7:34 PM
Two more years? That's not good. A lot of damage can be done in two years. Why don't they get rid of him now? Contracts can be changed, as Ben has pointed out.


I want to know why Gerry's contract was extended in the last 60 days for 2 years.

BWO: Can you tell me and the rest of Calguns which horse you spoke to and could you ask the horse why Gerry's contract was extended for 2 years not 60 days ago?

-Gene

GuyW
12-17-2008, 7:37 PM
The Board is elected.

That's not the issue. Who the candidates are that are put up for election, and how they became the candidates, are the issues....


The nominating committee is the board. Nothing is "Closed". There has to be some nominating committee, you can't have 100 names on the ballot

Irrespective of whether the nominating committee is made up of BOD members or appointed members, most organizations allow nominations from the floor (otherwise, yes - its "closed").

Does CRPA allow nominations from the floor?

I don't want to rely on secondhand info - where's the Bylaws for us to read??


There has to be some nominating committee, you can't have 100 names on the ballot, many of whom would be unqualified.


Sounds like a typical top-down organization. Let the members decide who's "qualified"...



The other State NRA affiliates work the same way


That's totally irrelevant to me in a discussion about CRPA openness...
.

383green
12-17-2008, 7:42 PM
With all due respect Matt, your main claim to fame is being arrested for firearms violations.

He was arrested on firearms violations charges. No actual firearms violations occurred. The charges were 100% bogus.

oaklander
12-17-2008, 7:47 PM
Thank you for explaining to me how the legal system works. . .

:p

I was one of the few people that saw his original post about the arrest. I was also one of the first people to send money to T&M for MC's defense. I've got the gun safe magnets to prove it. No need to school me on any of this.

However, my original question still stands. How does MC's arrest qualify him to represent Calguns on the CRPA? Or putting it another way, what other qualifications does MC possess?

He was arrested on firearms violations charges. No actual firearms violations occurred. The charges were 100% bogus.

383green
12-17-2008, 8:04 PM
Thank you for explaining to me how the legal system works. . .

I'm glad to help! :D

Your sarcasm is thusly noted, enjoyed, and returned in kind. :tt2:

I just didn't like the way you phrased that one comment, and didn't want it misinterpreted by newer readers who aren't up to speed on Matt's Big Adventure.

P.S.: I have the magnets, too. ;)

GuyW
12-17-2008, 8:06 PM
2. The CRPA is totally restructuring it's election and nomination process. Please read the following: http://www.crpa.org/showpages.aspx?pid=1448


There's not enough information there to dispell my suspicions that this is inconsequential window-dressing...biz as usual...



The board WILL be open to qualified applicants.


Really.

How does a CRPA member determine whether he/she is "qualified" or not?

How can CRPA members monitor whether qualified applicants are ignored?

How can CRPA members know that we are getting the *best* qualified applicants as nominees??

It seems like CRPA has been saying that they have been accepting "qualified" applicants....but in the politics / strategizing / lobbying / vision areas, not much seems to get done.

Doesn't that REALLY disprove the validity of the "qualifications" of some / much of the Board of Directors?

.

oaklander
12-17-2008, 8:08 PM
LOL - no problem - good point - I will edit the original post so there's no confusion. . .

:)


I'm glad to help! :D

Your sarcasm is thusly noted, enjoyed, and returned in kind. :tt2:

I just didn't like the way you phrased that one comment, and didn't want it misinterpreted by newer readers who aren't up to speed on Matt's Big Adventure.

P.S.: I have the magnets, too. ;)

GuyW
12-17-2008, 8:13 PM
With all due respect Matt, your main claim to fame is being arrested for alleged (and 100 percent bogus) firearms violations.

To be fair - I'd say that makes him have a very personal dog in this fight...moreso than an individual who (for whatever reasons) would never buy/build an OLL, or UOC, etc. He's been on the raw edge...


How does this qualify you to speak for Calguns?

I missed the part where he was speaking for CALGUNS (?)
.

oaklander
12-17-2008, 8:32 PM
To be fair - I'd say that makes him have a very personal dog in this fight...moreso than an individual who (for whatever reasons) would never buy/build an OLL, or UOC, etc. He's been on the raw edge...

We all have a dog in this fight. That's not the point. I'm just trying to figure out what makes Matt more qualified than someone like Bill or Gene.

I missed the part where he was speaking for CALGUNS (?)
.

You missed THIS part:

I can also say that assuming I get a seat on the board (which seems almost certain), that you will have a strong voice there through me. Please post here any issues you would like specifically addressed.

Matt C
12-17-2008, 9:19 PM
Two more years? That's not good. A lot of damage can be done in two years. Why don't they get rid of him now? Contracts can be changed, as Ben has pointed out.


I can't answer that. I'm just personally glad he will be gone.




I read the link, but I don't understand it. Can I run for the board? Or do I need to be "nominated" first?


Why don't you apply? You are a lawyer, and you know gun laws, speaking for myself I would think that you would be well qualified. I don't see where there is an issue unless they refuse to nominate you, at this point it seems like borrowing trouble.




With all due respect Matt, your main claim to fame is being arrested for alleged (and 100 percent bogus) firearms violations. How does this qualify you to speak for Calguns?

Before I was arrested I represented 20,000 college students as student body president. In any case, I'll just be one board member of many, I'm not running for president. Still, I think I have my finger on the pulse of what calgunner's want (CCW, end the AW ban/Roster, fund programs that encourage new shooters). If someone thinks I'm not representing call me out, or run yourself!


I want to know why Gerry's contract was extended in the last 60 days for 2 years.

BWO: Can you tell me and the rest of Calguns which horse you spoke to and could you ask the horse why Gerry's contract was extended for 2 years not 60 days ago?


Since I have nothing to do with CRPA at the moment I can't tell you why they did anything. And since the info about Gerry was given in confidence, I'm not going to share the source. I'll simply say that I fully trust it.



That's not the issue. Who the candidates are that are put up for election, and how they became the candidates, are the issues....


Well the candidates are made up of those who apply. The board decides who is actually qualified to be nominated or run for election. At this point though I don't know of any current attempts to control who gets on the board, if there were I don't think they would be letting me on...


Irrespective of whether the nominating committee is made up of BOD members or appointed members, most organizations allow nominations from the floor (otherwise, yes - its "closed").


From what I understand anyone who applies can be nominated, and they they are vetted by the board. I don't see a problem with this system unless it is actually abused, which they have not even had a chance to do yet since the system is not in place. I'll I'm saying is lets see how things play out...

I'll try to get a copy of the bylaws to post, that should be public info. Again, the CRPA is not run differently from the other NRA state affiliates. Beyond that I'm no expert on the inner workings of the CRPA, I just know what I want them to do differently.



How does a CRPA member determine whether he/she is "qualified" or not?

Keeping in mind that the system has not yet seen action, I'm informed that the basis will be does the person have experience relevant to the committee on which he or she wishes to serve.

How can CRPA members monitor whether qualified applicants are ignored?

Well, that's why I think it's important to get new members on the board.

How can CRPA members know that we are getting the *best* qualified applicants for nominees??

Again, that's why we need members on the board, but I'll personally blow the whistle if the process seems political. That said, I think we are borrowing trouble again.

It seems like CRPA has been saying that they have been accepting "qualified" applicants....but in the politics / strategizing / lobbying / vision areas, not much seems to get done.

Agreed, and that needs to change. I can't promise that it will based on the changes that HAVE been made, but I'm willing to give it a chance.

Doesn't that REALLY disprove the validity of the "qualifications" of some / much of the Board of Directors?.

I have no idea what their qualifications are...

We all have a dog in this fight. That's not the point. I'm just trying to figure out what makes Matt more qualified than someone like Bill or Gene.

Who said I am? I'm applying for a position that fits my skills and experience, they are welcome to do the same. If they get rejected, then you have a beef (and so would I, I personally think Gene or Bill would certainly be qualified for a spot on the board) but until then I don't see an issue.



Sounds kind of like Jesus, don't you think? He was arrested, so we wouldn't have to be. And now because of that, we can speak with the "higher ups" through him.
:rolleyes: I'm not Jesus, but if I'm sitting on the board I don't have to be a messiah to relate what people are saying here to the other people there. If you want to say it yourself, than again I encourage you to apply. I would like to see as many calgunners as possible on the board.


Again, nothing against Matt, I've met him several times, and he's very nice person. I just can't figure out what CRPA is trying to do with this.

Let's get one thing straight, I'm my own man. I call things like I see them, and I would not put ANYTHING before RKBA in this state.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 9:21 PM
Since I have nothing to do with CRPA at the moment I can't tell you why they did anything. And since the info about Gerry was given in confidence, I'm not going to share the source. I'll simply say that I fully trust it.


So you support the new open CRPA by not sharing who you talked to that guarantees that Gerry isn't going to be there in two years. Why should we trust your anonymous source?

Did you speak to Gerry?

Why did CRPA renew Gerry's contract 60 days ago for 2 years? You're willing to engage fully with an organization who recently reupped a person who's been responsible for anti-gun legislation being passed in California?

-Gene

Matt C
12-17-2008, 9:27 PM
So you support the new open CRPA by not sharing who you talked to that guarantees that Gerry isn't going to be there in two years. Why should we trust your anonymous source?

Did you speak to Gerry?

Why did CRPA renew Gerry's contract 60 days ago for 2 years?

-Gene

Did you actually have something to add to this discussion? I'm not going to post who said it, period. I did not speak to Gerry. If you don't want to trust my source based on the fact that I trust it, that's fine. You don't have to. If it turns out to be false than you can call me a liar or a fool, until then what is the point of fixating on it? And how would I know why they renewed his contract? I already said I was not on the board when it happened.

The CRPA budget is something like $4 million, Gerry's salary is a small fraction of that. I think it's an important issue, but certainly not the ONLY issue here.

oaklander
12-17-2008, 9:29 PM
Thanks Matt for your reply. Sorry about the Jesus reference - I thought better of myself and edited it out of my original post.

Your points are well-taken, and I appreciate the fact that you are willing to engage in dialog about this.

I think most rational people agree that it would be good to have a strong and effective state affiliate organization that works with the NRA. If you hear concern, it's not about the concept so much as the recent execution.

Gene and others bring up some legitimate concerns and questions, and I look forward to you addressing them as this thread proceeds. . .

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 9:31 PM
Did you actually have something to add to this discussion?
How many years has your source worked for CRPA?

I'm trying to explain to you that CRPA did not go through with the level of reform promised to your and everyone else's face in Orange County this summer. CRPA re-upped a contract lobbyist who has cost you and me gun rights.

I'll out your source if you don't. I can tell you that he and I have had difficult conversations and I am hardly the only person in California to be displeased on this situation with him particularly.

Have you even considered his conflict of interest?

-Gene

oaklander
12-17-2008, 9:33 PM
*** message to the DOJ trolls who read this ***

The fact that we are debating these issues is not a reflection of factionalization in the gun rights community. To the contrary - it's evidence of how we work together as a team to strengthen our base and protect our rights.

:D

Matt C
12-17-2008, 9:34 PM
I think most rational people agree that it would be good to have a strong and effective state affiliate organization that works with the NRA. If you hear concern, it's not about the concept so much as the recent execution.


Hey I agree! It was my b*tching about that poor execution that resulted in the events leading to this post. Basically I was told, "If you don't like how it's being done, why don't you get in there and change it?". The ol' put up or shut up. I was as pissed as you guys to be called "sunshine patriot" by a guy who has not went though what members of this board have gone through for RKBA, and I'm not afraid to say it.

Kestryll
12-17-2008, 9:40 PM
Did you actually have something to add to this discussion?
You know what Matt, that right there tells me I DO NOT want you representing me or Calguns.

If your answer to questions and having your feet held to the fire by those you claim to represent is snarky attitude no thanks.

You can claim to represent yourself but do not even suggest that you represent Calguns.

Matt C
12-17-2008, 9:44 PM
How many years has your source worked for CRPA?

I'm trying to explain to you that CRPA did not go through with the level of reform promised to your and everyone else's face in Orange County this summer. CRPA re-upped a contract lobbyist who has cost you and me gun rights.

I'll out your source if you don't. I can tell you that he and I have had difficult conversations and I am hardly the only person in California to be displeased on this situation with him particularly.

Have you even considered his conflict of interest?

-Gene

You do what you feel is right. I'm sure you had no problem figuring out who the source was in any case, but I think you would be opening a real schism if you post it. And I don't see how it will further RKBA.

I don't have a conflict of interest, and if you are saying that the info I was given is false, than I don't know what to say other than I guess we'll have to see.

I've been waiting for the promised reform since the meeting in your office well over a year ago, and I've yet to see it. What I have seen is the ground work laid for reform, and I want to give it a chance and maybe even help make it happen.

I don't like what I hear about Gerry, but I've never met the guy and all I have is hearsay about what he supposedly did in Sac. That said, I do trust who I heard it from, and whether it's true or not is irrelevant at this point. The man is a divisive influence and he needs to go. I'm been promised specifically that he will be gone, which I have not heard before. Given that, I'm willing to wait a little while for him to go away. It would not be my choice, but I don't see a practical way around it, given what CRPA has already done.

Change does not happen overnight, and I'll certainly grant you that change has been slow in coming, but I think that in two years the CRPA could be EVERYTHING we want it to be. I don't think we really have a better option at this point but to try and make that happen.

Matt C
12-17-2008, 9:47 PM
You know what Matt, that right there tells me I DO NOT want you representing me or Calguns.

If your answer to questions and having your feet held to the fire by those you claim to represent is snarky attitude no thanks.

You can claim to represent yourself but do not even suggest that you represent Calguns.

Fair enough, it was a snarky comment. I'm not perfect. But is one comment what you are basing that decision on? Cut me some slack here, all I'm promising is to relay what I hear here to CRPA, while pursuing my own agenda of reform there (which I think happens to be what most people here want). In any case, I can't represent calguns, it is a group of individuals, unless we had a mass vote on an issue or something, in which case I would literally be representing calguns by repeating the results (which anyone could do by visiting the site).

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 9:49 PM
Fair enough, it was a snarky comment. I'm not perfect. But is one comment what you are basing that decision on? Cut me some slack here, all I'm promising is to relay what I hear here to CRPA, while pursuing my own agenda of reform there (which I think happens to be what most people here want).

But isn't CRPA using you to further a perception of reform without much reality while stalling for time?

How many years has your source worked for CRPA?

-Gene

oaklander
12-17-2008, 9:51 PM
Matt, I think that Gene has a legitimate point - there may be more to this whole thing than you have been told (or want to believe). I also think that Kes has a good point - part of John Fields' rapid demise here was due in part to his "presentation" (or lack thereof).

Matt C
12-17-2008, 9:52 PM
But isn't CRPA using you to further a perception of reform without much reality while stalling for time?

How many years has your source worked for CRPA?

-Gene

Is it? How many years has he? I don't know the answers to those questions. Can you help me out and tell me why you are assuming a hidden agenda here?

383green
12-17-2008, 9:55 PM
If your answer to questions and having your feet held to the fire by those you claim to represent is snarky attitude no thanks.

While I agree that it was a snarky comment, it appears to me that he was having his feet held to the fire in part over events and decisions in which he had no involvement. That hardly seems fair or helpful to me. If you don't like snarky attitude, keep in mind Matt isn't the only guy here who has ever let a snarky comment slip out.

I'm not trying to be pro-CRPA, anti-CRPA, pro-Matt, anti-Matt, or anything else here; I'm just calling out what I see.

I agree with Oaklander that we're just hashing out stuff here, but let's be careful that it doesn't slip into actual divisiveness.

CavTrooper
12-17-2008, 9:56 PM
I know very little about all the players in these different orgs, but one thing I do know is that when you want real, effective representation, you need big time players/movers and shakers on your side. I dont think being class president and getting locked up qualifies one as a big time player.

Can you run with the big boys?

By the show Ive seen put on here, I dont think so, but I could be wrong.

sorensen440
12-17-2008, 9:56 PM
but let's be careful that it doesn't slip into actual divisiveness.

This is very important
things seem to be heated at the moment

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 9:59 PM
I'm sure you had no problem figuring out who the source was in any case, but I think you would be opening a real schism if you post it. And I don't see how it will further RKBA.


I'd really like to not have to air that issue out - but I will say this. If you don't ask him some of these hard questions - questions that I ask him - then I think you may have a conflict of interest. Accepting a diversionary answer to these hard questions is not pushing for reform.

If I don't get some resolution on this issue shortly I think I'm going to let some sun shine in on a whole host of issues including your sources positions on these issues and ask him to come defend them in public.

The only reform CRPA made is to remove the Executive Committee from choosing board members and replace it with a Nominating Committee. After hearing clearly from it's past, current, and future constituency in Orange County which you witneesed, it went ahead and renewed Gerry's contract for two years.

Why should we trust CRPA? I want it to reform and I've probably already put in more time and money than you have on that process, but all I see is a desire to stall and make promises without making substantive steps to reach out and let all of us know why it should be trusted.

-Gene

Matt C
12-17-2008, 9:59 PM
Matt, I think that Gene has a legitimate point - there may be more to this whole thing than you have been told (or want to believe). I also think that Kes has a good point - part of John Fields' rapid demise here was due in part to his "presentation" (or lack thereof).

Hey, that's fine, like I said I'm not all knowing or perfect. Neither is Gene (I think he called me "dense" the other day what I question him on something), I think I've been around long enough not be judged on a single post.

If there is some conspiricy here lets out it. But before we go slinging mud on someone reputation I hope there are FACTS with PROOF.

I'd really like to not have to air that issue out - but I will say this. If you don't ask him some of these hard questions - questions that I ask him - then I think you may have a conflict of interest. Excepting a diversionary answer to these hard questions is not pushing for reform.


I have no problem with that. I'm certainly not afraid to ask a question. If there is no good answer, than we can lock this post and forget reforming the CRPA. What questions specifically do you want answers to? Besides why did they renew the contract with Gerry (which seems a little pointless since I'm sure they came come up with a good answer for that one regardless of intention).


The only reform CRPA made is to remove the Executive Committee from choosing board members and replace it with a Nominating Committee. After hearing clearly from it's past, current, and future constituency in Orange County which you witneesed, it went ahead and renewed Gerry's contract for two years.

Why should we trust CRPA? I want it to reform and I've probably already put in more time and money than you have on that process, but all I see is a desire to stall and make promises without making substantive steps to reach out and let all of us know why it should be trusted.

-Gene

How about, if you can't beat em, join em? I'm certainly not satisfied with the reform that has taken place so far, and now I'm moving to join the board in order to do what I can to make sure that the past is not repeated. Isn't it true that you were offered a position on the board? If not and you were offered one would you accept it? It's easy to play armchair general, I'm saying lets get in there and do something about it.

oaklander
12-17-2008, 10:06 PM
In fairness, I don't think anyone is trying to sling mud. Rather, I think that people are hinting to you that there are other forces and motivations at work here.

EDIT: as Kes points out, this whole thing smells of back room politics. I think what people are trying to tell you is that from their perspective, this does not look like "change" at all.

Hey, that's fine, like I said I'm not all knowing or perfect. Neither is Gene (I think he called me "dense" the other day what I question him on something), I think I've been around long enough not be judged on a single post.

If there is some conspiricy here lets out it. But before we go slinging mud on someone reputation I hope there are FACTS with PROOF.

Kestryll
12-17-2008, 10:06 PM
Fair enough, it was a snarky comment. I'm not perfect. But is one comment what you are basing that decision on? Cut me some slack here, all I'm promising is to relay what I hear here to CRPA, while pursuing my own agenda of reform there (which I think happens to be what most people here want).

No, one comment is not what I am basing my decision on.
It is definitely something that puts questions in my mind and gives me a pretty good picture of where your mind is at however.

You don't seem to get it, I do not want to have any more of the 'trust us' stuff. I don't. I was lied to, to my face.
Now what I demand is transparency and what I am getting is more obfuscation and veiled comments about schisms, secret sources and back door deals.

Sorry, not good enough.

You want slack?
We've given CRPA all the slack in the world and now out of the blue you're telling us how good it's going to be?
Wait six months and we'll do 'X'.
Well, we didn't do 'X' but wait two years and we'll do 'X'

Again, sorry, not good enough.
Do I look stupid? Maybe I'll buy the same BS again?

No offense Matt but you pop up out of the blue with this whole thing and expect us to set aside the same concerns, questions and issues because, while nothing has changed, your involved?

How exactly is all this shady stuff suppose to be called cooperation and working together anyways?
I'm about 95% sure that like Gene I know your 'source' and how the connection was made and I'll tell you flat out this sounds and looks like just another example of back room, old boy's club dealing and NOT like change, transparency or improvement.

I've got way too much invested of my time, effort and life in Calguns to not be damn picky about how my 'brand' is used and who lays claim to it.
If you get on the CRPA Board, great. But your presence doesn't mean they're washed clean, it means you now have to answer the same questions and concerns that we've been asking them about.
They don't get a pass by placing you on the Board.

Matt C
12-17-2008, 10:08 PM
This is very important
things seem to be heated at the moment

Perhaps, but we are all passionate people. I KNOW Gene wants all BS guns laws repealed, he is not in this for anything else. We may disagree about how to go about it, but never about the endgame. Which is what Brady et all will never understand.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 10:18 PM
Isn't it true that you were offered a position on the board? If not and you were offered one would you accept it? It's easy to play armchair general, I'm saying lets get in there and do something about it.

One person said he'd put me on the CRPA board. I'm certainly willing to consider it but here are my issues:

1. CRPA did not complete the reforms promised this fall.

2. You and I are 2 votes on a board of 70? 68-2 doesn't get much reform. There are a host of people here and in the NRA Members Councils who should be coming onto the CRPA board also.

3. Gerry was able to convince the 68 other board members that after 10 years or more of issues, 2 more years would be a good idea.

If CRPA is serious about becoming responsive to its members it should:

1. Ask Mr. Upholtz to leave. No legislative representation would be an improvement as it would depower Mr. Upholtz's conflict of interest at Lynch & Associates.

2. Seriously consider allowing petition candidates for at least a limited number of board seats.

3. Invite a group of Calgunners and NRA MCers who have been most skeptical to join the board - not just more backroom fat cat stuff with a token member or two.

Even performing a couple of those items would start to engender trust. However, comments about Sunshine Patriots or claiming that the concerns about Gerry aren't serious or real don't engender that trust.

I have been working to reform CRPA and I state here and now I will happily work to reform that organization from inside at the appropriate time. I need some comfort that the desire of CRPA to appoint me to the board does not remain a stall tactic to allow them to look like they are doing something without actually doing something. Once you become a member of the board of directors of CRPA you owe a fiduciary duty to them. I take those sorts of duties very seriously.

How about you? Are you confident that appointing you is a real reform move by CRPA or a stall tactic so they can look like they are doing something?

-Gene

Kestryll
12-17-2008, 10:22 PM
While I agree that it was a snarky comment, it appears to me that he was having his feet held to the fire in part over events and decisions in which he had no involvement. That hardly seems fair or helpful to me. If you don't like snarky attitude, keep in mind Matt isn't the only guy here who has ever let a snarky comment slip out.
The difference is that Matt is now looking to step in to the arena where presentation and perception are everything.
A snarky comment by a member of a forum is just that, a snide response to a paying member from a Board member is an entirely different thing and much more serious.
That is an aspect and issue Matt will have to keep in mind every time he answers a question or is pilloried for what the Board he is on has done.
If he can't keep that in mind and responds off the cuff like he did here then he's going to be in trouble.
And I sure as hell would rather hammer him about it here and now then wait and see it happen later once his words are 'official'.


I agree with Oaklander that we're just hashing out stuff here, but let's be careful that it doesn't slip into actual divisiveness.
Hashing things out is exactly what we're doing, I'm not going to stop seeing Matt as a friend, I like him and think he's a good guy. Neither am I questioning his heart for the cause.
I am going to question the current events and this scenario but I would do that with ANYONE.

artherd
12-17-2008, 10:27 PM
Guys - I know matt, and his heart is in the right place on this. There are other factors at work here though. Let's take a few steps back and remember we're all playing for the same team. Out of this thread I expect to come significant change with how gun rights groups do business in CA.

oaklander
12-17-2008, 10:33 PM
OK - time for comic relief!

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/17/128740590816595255.png

Thank you, I'll be here all week!!!

383green
12-17-2008, 10:35 PM
OK - time for comic relief!

I say, well-played, sir! ;)

Casual Reader
12-17-2008, 10:43 PM
You do what you feel is right. I'm sure you had no problem figuring out who the source was in any case, but I think you would be opening a real schism if you post it. And I don't see how it will further RKBA.


I personally have no clue who you are talking about, honestly i dont really care, but it seems to me like you are trying to equate questioning individual people and their motivations with questioning the cause which is a real red flag for me.

reading through this and other threads on the topic this is what I understand:

CRPA has a board of directors. This board of directors is elected by their membership and the ballot is distributed with their newsletter.

In order to get your name on the ballot to be on the board of directors up until now you had to ask the board of directors.

They are now changing it so that instead of going to the board of directors you will go to a subcommittee made up of members of the board of directors.

They are not willing to publish a list of who the members of the board of directors are.

So an unknown group of people with an unknown set of qualifications, would like to vet potential candidates for the board of directors to weed out the "unqualified" in order to save the membership the hassle of having to decide who is or is not qualified to serve on the board.

Does that about sum up the situation? or am I missing something here?

It does seem nice that when the proletariat get a little too loud that the members of the committee will allow one of their ranks to join the Politburo. Sounds like the kind of comrades i want protecting my freedoms.

Give my regards to the General Secretary when you speak with him again.

Matt C
12-17-2008, 10:43 PM
No, one comment is not what I am basing my decision on.
It is definitely something that puts questions in my mind and gives me a pretty good picture of where your mind is at however.


I have to ask, where is mind mind at? Because last time I checked my mind was at: "no more gun laws", and nowhere else.


You don't seem to get it, I do not want to have any more of the 'trust us' stuff. I don't. I was lied to, to my face.
Now what I demand is transparency and what I am getting is more obfuscation and veiled comments about schisms, secret sources and back door deals.


Ok, fair enough. I would rather have things all out in the open. I really would. I don't blame you for not trusting the CRPA. I DON'T TRUST THEM EITHER! What I'm saying is, sitting here and griping about it is not going to fix the problem.


We've given CRPA all the slack in the world and now out of the blue you're telling us how good it's going to be?
Wait six months and we'll do 'X'.
Well, we didn't do 'X' but wait two years and we'll do 'X'


It will only be as good as we make it, period. Where did I say it will be all roses and sunshine? Re-read my first post. And did someone at CRPA actually promise that Gerry would be gone in six months? I missed that, if was said.



No offense Matt but you pop up out of the blue with this whole thing and expect us to set aside the same concerns, questions and issues because, while nothing has changed, your involved?


Nothing has changed. Hell, I'm not even involved yet, and I did not promise anything, other than Gerry would be gone in two years MAX, and that the board will be open. To what degree, I can't say yet.


How exactly is all this shady stuff suppose to be called cooperation and working together anyways?
I'm about 95% sure that like Gene I know your 'source' and how the connection was made and I'll tell you flat out this sounds and looks like just another example of back room, old boy's club dealing and NOT like change, transparency or improvement.


All the source did was tell me something. It's either true or it's not. Apparently, if if true, it's not good enough for some people. Well, there is probably nothing I can do about that. And if it's not true, I'll certainly resign from any position with the CRPA the moment it becomes clear. Honestly this issue is just not that shady, at least to my knowledge. It seems like you guys are the ones with inside knowledge?


I've got way too much invested of my time, effort and life in Calguns to not be damn picky about how my 'brand' is used and who lays claim to it.
If you get on the CRPA Board, great. But your presence doesn't mean they're washed clean, it means you now have to answer the same questions and concerns that we've been asking them about.
They don't get a pass by placing you on the Board.

I couldn't agree more. No one gets a pass, and as one board member I'm not going to be single handedly rebuilding Rome. And I never said anything about a free pass.
Hashing things out is exactly what we're doing, I'm not going to stop seeing Matt as a friend, I like him and think he's a good guy. Neither am I questioning his heart for the cause.
I am going to question the current events and this scenario but I would do that with ANYONE.
I'd expect nothing less. And yeah, I guess I have be careful of the snarky comments when speaking as a board member, but I'm not a board member yet...;)

One person said he'd put me on the CRPA board. I'm certainly willing to consider it but here are my issues:

1. CRPA did not complete the reforms promised this fall.

Agreed.

2. You and I are 2 votes on a board of 70? 68-2 doesn't get much reform. There are a host of people here and in the NRA Members Councils who should be coming onto the CRPA board also.

Also Agreed.

3. Gerry was able to convince the 68 other board members that after 10 years or more of issues, 2 more years would be a good idea.

YEah, I can't imagine why they thought that, but apparently this is his last term... If that were so would it satisfy you?

If CRPA is serious about becoming responsive to its members it should:

1. Ask Mr. Upholtz to leave. No legislative representation would be an improvement as it would depower Mr. Upholtz's conflict of interest at Lynch & Associates.

Ok, well that something that the board could discuss I suppose. I would sure as hell like to have you there for back up if I brought it up.

2. Seriously consider allowing petition candidates for at least a limited number of board seats.

Doesn't it make sense to see if we can get them appointed before we go trying to get them petitioned on? It would be a lot simpler...

3. Invite a group of Calgunners and NRA MCers who have been most skeptical to join the board - not just more backroom fat cat stuff with a token member or two.

Like have not been skeptical? I posted This"http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1756722&postcount=115
less than 2 weeks ago. I don't know who that fat cats are, none of us will be getting paid, we don't even get expenses...

Even performing a couple of those items would start to engender trust. However, comments about Sunshine Patriots or claiming that the concerns about Gerry aren't serious or real don't engender that trust.

Of course they don't, but one guy sticking his foot in his mouth should not cause us to abandon the CRPA considering the charter and funding it has

I have been working to reform CRPA and I state here and now I will happily work to reform that organization from inside at the appropriate time. I need some comfort that the desire of CRPA to appoint me to the board does not remain a stall tactic to allow them to look like they are doing something without actually doing something. Once you become a member of the board of directors of CRPA you owe a fiduciary duty to them. I take those sorts of duties very seriously.

How about you? Are you confident that appointing you is a real reform move by CRPA or a stall tactic so they can look like they are doing something?


How would we know? I do think that if there is no one there to lead the CRPA that it will never get to where I want (and I think you want) it to be. Therefore I think it's the right choice to go in now and give it our best. If we fail than at least we will have exhausted all options, and when we resign and try to get the NRA to choose another affiliate it will be impossible for anyone to say otherwise.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 10:54 PM
Your source has an economic interest in CRPA. He's had that interest for at least 10 years.

In two years there is no way for you to have any comfort that Gerry's contract isn't extended for another 2 years by a vote of 68-2. The clear and unified voice of we the grassroots had no impact on him getting another 2 years just 60 days ago.

CRPA successfully stalled for another 3 months and you want to trust them again? Why?

You are only one person. You've been skeptical but I don't think you're aware of the various issues. I think it has been news to you that your source may not agree with a whole host of folks that would surprise you.

Have you thought through the political ramifications of you taking a mantle as "representing Calguns" and going on the board of CRPA in such a limited number that you're vote is moot?

It's already Reform 0, CRPA 1. Letting CRPA claim they're appointing Calgunners while, for example, ignoring Bill Wiese - Reform 0, CRPA 2.

-Gene

Matt C
12-17-2008, 11:07 PM
Your source has an economic interest in CRPA. He's had that interest for at least 10 years.

Ok. And he will still have it if CRPA is reformed right?.

In two years there is no way for you to have any comfort that Gerry's contract isn't extended for another 2 years by a vote of 68-2. The clear and unified voice of we the grassroots had no impact on him getting another 2 years just 60 days ago.

Well who from the unified voice of we the grassroots was actually sitting on the board to speak up against extending the contract? It seems like the excuse made was that Gerry would be there to train the new guy if that's what it came to. Who was there to say that was not needed?

CRPA successfully stalled for another 3 months and you want to trust them again? Why?

I don't trust "them", but what better choice is there than working to fix the CRPA? Do you really think the NRA is going to pick another state affiliate in the next two years?

You are only one person. You've been skeptical but I don't think you're aware of the various issues. I think it has been news to you that your source may not agree with a whole host of folks that would surprise you.

Well who is the one with secret sources now? What are we talking about here?

Have you thought through the political ramifications of you taking a mantle as "representing Calguns" and going on the board of CRPA in such a limited number that you're vote is moot?

I know that my voice may be moot, but if nothing else I can come back here and report that they are not even listening. But I'm hoping they will listen. I for that last time, I'm not representing calguns, calguns is a website, it has no hierarchy or real structure, it's place where individuals meet, discuss, and plan. What I can do is repeat the issues brought up here. If an individual WANTS me to speak for them, I will. Thus being a voice for calgunners who are not there. That does not mean I represent calguns, or calgunners in general, and I will be more clear in the future that I am not implying otherwise.

It's already Reform 0, CRPA 1. Letting CRPA claim they're appointing Calgunners while, for example, ignoring Bill Wiese - Reform 0, CRPA 2.

-Gene

And us remaining on the sidelines without stepping in to fix the problem is Reform 0, CRPA 3.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 11:18 PM
And us remaining on the sidelines without stepping in to fix the problem is Reform 0, CRPA 3.

How is appointing 1 or 2 board members fixing the problem?

NRA made it clear to CRPA that it would reform or face deaffiliation. California does not need a state affiliate.

Your source would have a difficult choice between NRA and CRPA should deaffiliation occur. Have you considered that?

Finally, I wish I was on the sidelines. Instead I've spent lots of time I could be spending with my wife and children on this issue - on the road on my dime, taking time out of my work day to chase these issues.

I would really vastly prefer to be on the sidelines. I have better things to do than be told to trust an organization that failed the last time it asked for that trust. I'd really like to be spending the time I am asking you to think about some of the ramifications on something more productive for gun owners.

I feel like you duck my harder questions. I'll ask one of them again:

Have you thought through the political ramifications of you taking a mantle as "representing Calguns" and going on the board of CRPA in such a limited number that you're vote is moot?

-Gene

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 11:24 PM
Well who from the unified voice of we the grassroots was actually sitting on the board to speak up against extending the contract? It seems like the excuse made was that Gerry would be there to train the new guy if that's what it came to. Who was there to say that was not needed?

I was on the phone and in person explaining it to a host of individuals. Interestingly they wouldn't share their board list until after Gerry was re-appointed. They specifically ignored both others and me saying that no representative was better than Gerry and an actual capable representative would be a lot better.

Your essentially saying that the only way to get the voice of the grassroots heard is for them to be on the board. The only way to get on the board is if they're ok with that. They'll let a token person or two on but you know - they don't really want real critics to be able to get on the board. They'd really prefer to ignore their past, present and future members with board granted impunity.

-Gene

Matt C
12-17-2008, 11:29 PM
How is appointing 1 or 2 board members fixing the problem?

It's not, but I think it's a step in the right direction. We would have some power there I think, and I think you know that.

NRA made it clear to CRPA that it would reform or face deaffiliation. California does not need a state affiliate.

Are you saying that $4,000,000.00 well spent would not help RKBA in this state? Even if we get 10% of that budget allocated properly it would be a great boost. And the CRPA may be a lot stronger now with the NRA than they were 6 months ago. I'm sure that issue will come up tomorrow night...

Your source would have a difficult choice between NRA and CRPA. Have you considered that?

I honestly don't know what you mean. I'm not privy to everything you are, I really am just a guy that wants to make things better.

Finally, I wish I was on the sidelines. Instead of spent lots of time I could be spending with my wife and children on this issue - on the road on my dime, taking time out of my work day to chase these issues.

I would really vastly prefer to be on the sidelines. I have better things to do than be told to trust an organization that failed the last time it asked for that trust. I'd really like to be spending the time I am asking you to think about some of the ramifications on something more productive for gun owners.

I know you have done a lot, but do you really see trying this as the worst thing we could do?

I feel like you duck my harder questions. I'll ask one of them again:

Have you thought through the political ramifications of you taking a mantle as "representing Calguns" and going on the board of CRPA in such a limited number that you're vote is moot?

-Gene

I said I'm not representing calguns, because I can't. I'm not ducking the question. My vote might not matter much alone, but even just being a silent fly on the wall can't hurt, and I don't plan on remaining silent.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 11:51 PM
You are impossible to quote when you inline like that. Please don't.


It's not, but I think it's a step in the right direction. We would have some power there I think, and I think you know that.

If this were just about the influence I could have there - I know I could. However, I'm not going to waste my effort when that effort is simply used to keep the organization from being deaffiliated while not creating a meaningful ability for those changes to stick. I am absolutely willing to go on the board with a larger group that is more than just Calguns.

Are you saying that $4,000,000.00 well spent would not help RKBA in this state? Even if we get 10% of that budget allocated properly it would be a great boost. And the CRPA may be a lot stronger now with the NRA than they were 6 months ago. I'm sure that issue will come up tomorrow night...

You are being misled. CRPA does not have an annual budget of $4M. It is less than half that at maximum.
I honestly don't know what you mean. I'm not privy to everything you are, I really am just a guy that wants to make things better.

If CRPA is deaffiliated by NRA then it's not clear that your source can continue with his financial interest with CRPA.
I know you have done a lot, but do you really see trying this as the worst thing we could do?
I do not think it in our best interest to allow them to show the appearance of reform without actually doing something that indicates why we should trust them. Can you tell me what CRPA has done in the last 12 months that shows us we should trust them?

I see:
1. Incomplete reform.
2. Reupping Gerry for 2 years.
3. Stalling.
4. Misleading their past, present, and future members.
5. Attempting to divide us by using you.

Ask your source for the current CRPA board president's phone number and ask him if he'd accept an 8-12 member slate selected from Calguns and the NRA MCs. That would be a start. Then ask your source why he personally opposes any petition board members. Ask him what he'd do if CRPA was deaffiliated.

I'm sorry that you don't see how this works but I don't think I'm saying something secret. I'm just very concerned you are letting your being flattered by being offered a role blind you to what the implications of that offer actually are. Do the dillegence I'm pointing out above. You have my phone number, email address, and PM address. I'll be flying down there tomorrow.

I'm tired of this. Calguns, NRA MC's, and CRPA either need to come to a solution or we need to exercise our collective rights as NRA members to petition for CRPA to be cut free. I will not allow CRPA to continue to be broken for another 10 years while begging for yet another reprieve - "just trust us this time."

-Gene

Matt C
12-17-2008, 11:55 PM
Well, lets talk in person tomorrow, source and all. I'll even spring for dinner. Right now I'm going to get some sleep.

383green
12-18-2008, 12:05 AM
My vote might not matter much alone, but even just being a silent fly on the wall can't hurt, and I don't plan on remaining silent.

I get the impression that Gene may think that a particular fly (i.e., a Calgunner) on that particular wall might actually hurt, but I haven't been able to figure out the conclusion that he's hinting at. I don't think that Matt's finding it either, so y'all keep on circling around the issue without effect. It doesn't really matter if I'm not informed enough to read between the lines, but Matt seems to be in a spot where getting this message is critical.

Gene, I think you need to come out and say some of the stuff that you're hinting at to Matt, so that y'all can be on the same page. The discussion doesn't need to be public if that wouldn't be appropriate; the important thing is to get on the same page so that rational discourse can resume. I do not have the slightest doubt that both of y'all have the same endgame goals in mind, but speaking as an outside observer, this seems like a really important issue, and the two of you seem to be circling around it without making progress or reaching understanding.

Again speaking as an outside observer, I've seen Matt called to task for "wink wink, trust me" stuff, but Gene and others seem to be doing a bit of the same stuff with veiled suggestions about things going on behind the scenes. Sure, y'all actually deserve that trust (unlike the CRPA, it would seem), but at this moment it seems to be getting in the way of communication between some significant players.

So, I really think that y'all need to go offline and hash out the gory details about this for a bit. Share what you can here after it's all worked out, but please get onto the same page.


P.S.: I see that while I was typing this, y'all have agreed to meet and talk about this tomorrow. That's great! I thought that you were hundreds of miles apart, so my speculation about the upcoming Two Weeks package naturally has wandered into the area of teleportation technology. :rolleyes:

DDT
12-18-2008, 12:16 AM
I get the impression that Gene may think that a particular fly (i.e., a Calgunner) on that particular wall might actually hurt, but I haven't been able to figure out the conclusion that he's hinting at. I don't think that Matt's finding it either, so y'all keep on circling around the issue without effect. It doesn't really matter if I'm not informed enough to read between the lines, but Matt seems to be in a spot where getting this message is critical.

I read Gene's comments to mean that allowing one or two calgunners on the board but not following through on the rest of the needed reform looks like window dressing. This window dressing may cause a delay in much needed real reform or, barring that reform, a delay in deaffiliation.

hoffmang
12-18-2008, 12:18 AM
I get the impression that Gene may think that a particular fly (i.e., a Calgunner) on that particular wall might actually hurt, but I haven't been able to figure out the conclusion that he's hinting at.
I'll say it plainly. CRPA can obtain the veneer of "reaching out" to the Calguns community by appointing BWO without actually exposing the board to a significant enough group of votes to ensure real change.


P.S.: I see that while I was typing this, y'all have agreed to meet and talk about this tomorrow. That's great! I thought that you were hundreds of miles apart, so my speculation about the upcoming Two Weeks package naturally has wandered into the area of teleportation technology. :rolleyes:
The teleportation technology is called me taking time away from work and family, buying plane tickets, renting a hotel room and being gently accused of not being a part of the solution. :rolleyes:

-Gene

383green
12-18-2008, 12:24 AM
The teleportation technology is called me taking time away from work and family, buying plane tickets, renting a hotel room and being gently accused of not being a part of the solution. :rolleyes:

-Gene

That sounds so much less exciting than what I had in mind. You know, sometimes we don't want to see the man behind the curtain... :rolleyes:

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I thought there might be even more than that behind it.

artherd
12-18-2008, 1:18 AM
The teleportation technology is called me taking time away from work and family, buying plane tickets, renting a hotel room.
QUICK - HIDE IT!
http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/coil.jpg

383green
12-18-2008, 8:41 AM
QUICK - HIDE IT!

:rofl2:

:hurray:

Kestryll
12-18-2008, 9:05 AM
No, one comment is not what I am basing my decision on.
It is definitely something that puts questions in my mind and gives me a pretty good picture of where your mind is at however.


I have to ask, where is mind mind at? Because last time I checked my mind was at: "no more gun laws", and nowhere else.
It sure tells me you're not thinking like a representative of anything.
You're thinking about Matt and what Matt can do and what Matt wants and that kind of thinking is NOT a luxury you get when representing people.


You don't seem to get it, I do not want to have any more of the 'trust us' stuff. I don't. I was lied to, to my face.
Now what I demand is transparency and what I am getting is more obfuscation and veiled comments about schisms, secret sources and back door deals.


Ok, fair enough. I would rather have things all out in the open. I really would. I don't blame you for not trusting the CRPA. I DON'T TRUST THEM EITHER! What I'm saying is, sitting here and griping about it is not going to fix the problem.
Neither is 'If you can't beat them, join them'!
That's what you say when you give up and capitulate!
Fixing them is going to mean holding them to their word, making them directly accountable for what they say and do. It's going to require specific action, not token gestures.


We've given CRPA all the slack in the world and now out of the blue you're telling us how good it's going to be?
Wait six months and we'll do 'X'.
Well, we didn't do 'X' but wait two years and we'll do 'X'


It will only be as good as we make it, period. Where did I say it will be all roses and sunshine? Re-read my first post. And did someone at CRPA actually promise that Gerry would be gone in six months? I missed that, if was said.
No, it will only be as good as it allow itself to be, that's what you are missing.
I as a member have NO SAY IN JACK! so I can't 'make' it anything.
Until that changes it's all smoke, mirrors and parlor games.
As for Gerry, how much did you hear back in OC?



No offense Matt but you pop up out of the blue with this whole thing and expect us to set aside the same concerns, questions and issues because, while nothing has changed, your involved?


Nothing has changed. Hell, I'm not even involved yet, and I did not promise anything, other than Gerry would be gone in two years MAX, and that the board will be open. To what degree, I can't say yet.
Again, not good enough.
Do you have any idea the kind of damage that can be done in two years?
I don't want 'more open but to what degree we don't know'. I want OPEN.
Petition nominations, not 'selected appointees'.


How exactly is all this shady stuff suppose to be called cooperation and working together anyways?
I'm about 95% sure that like Gene I know your 'source' and how the connection was made and I'll tell you flat out this sounds and looks like just another example of back room, old boy's club dealing and NOT like change, transparency or improvement.


All the source did was tell me something. It's either true or it's not. Apparently, if if true, it's not good enough for some people. Well, there is probably nothing I can do about that. And if it's not true, I'll certainly resign from any position with the CRPA the moment it becomes clear. Honestly this issue is just not that shady, at least to my knowledge. It seems like you guys are the ones with inside knowledge?
Not shady?
Your source has a vested financial interest in keeping the CRPA viable and affiliated.
This issue is drawing attention to the CRPA and the issues it's members have with it thereby increasing the potential for disaffiliation.
You worked for your source and have a direct affiliation.
Your source has pull with the CRPA Board given their relationship.
You think that DOESN'T sound shady?

I'm not accusing your source of anything, I'm talking perception on both sides and that's what's being played here, along with the members of CRPA and Calguns.


I've got way too much invested of my time, effort and life in Calguns to not be damn picky about how my 'brand' is used and who lays claim to it.
If you get on the CRPA Board, great. But your presence doesn't mean they're washed clean, it means you now have to answer the same questions and concerns that we've been asking them about.
They don't get a pass by placing you on the Board.

I couldn't agree more. No one gets a pass, and as one board member I'm not going to be single handedly rebuilding Rome. And I never said anything about a free pass.
This is what you're not catching or considering.
They do expect a pass from seating you.
You can not, as a single vote affect ANYTHING.
When the subject comes up they expect to point to you and say "See, you have a voice on our Board right there, now be quiet and send us money."
You're lending them your credibility and giving them the ability to say 'Look, we included all of you' without it meaning anything. They're buying a 'watchdog' but removing his teeth.
It's called 'marginalization by inclusion' and it works very well, especially when someone goes willingly.

Think about it, what can your one vote really do? Nothing.
What can be claimed by adding you to the Board? A lot.
"We reached out.
We included all of you.
We gave you a vote on the Board
What else do you want?"


The ultimate objective is two-fold.
One is to move the CRPA forward, making it become a much more effective entity and one that actually listens specifically to it's members and takes action on those concerns.
It should be member-driven not member-tertiary.
The second is to start to work TOGETHER and this is not the way to do it.
This is "we'll throw you a bone now bark on my command"

If we can't get those two hashed out then we're not moving forward we're stagnating.

Matt C
12-18-2008, 9:38 AM
Kes,

You keep saying nothing is changing, but you don't know that. All you know or anyone knows, is that nothing HAS changed. Killing the CRPA without a replacement is NOT in the best interests of CA guns owners, I don't need anyone to tell me that. Without even mentioning the State Shooting Championships and all manner of other shooting programs, just what the CRPA has spent on legal bills (like for the Heller Brief, Prop H, and a ton of other stuff) is VERY important. And Hell Yes I want them to keep spending that money, and so should you. Nothing is "shady" there either.

For the Record, and for maybe the 5th time, I am not going to be on the board as "Calguns.net representative", I will be there volunteering in an Information Technology capacity, if I am nominated and elected. While I am there I would like to make the most of my time. This is not some CRPA trick. I started this thread to see what people wanted from the CRPA, not get to get flamed and accused of being a mole for people I've never even met.

The purpose of this thread was not to defend the CRPA. The CRPA has F'd up royally, and I have ALWAYS been the first one to say it. It was to say, here is what the CRPA is Promising, now what else do we want from them. You say you want them to listen to member concerns, well let's voice them now from the inside and see what happens. If they don't listen, then lets start planning a CRPA replacement organization that can eventually become the NRA state affiliate. Until that does or does not happen though, let's try to work with them.

So far I have as Action Items to propose to the board:

1. Conduct interviews and hire a replacement for Gerry Upholtz ASAP (like in months not years.)

2. Ensure that the Board becomes open and that 8-12 new members are appointed with preference given to those with leadership experience here on calguns or in the NRA MCs.

Anything else?

lavgrunt
12-18-2008, 11:07 AM
I have been following all the various threads dealing with CRPA for quite a while now. I have posted a few times, but mostly just 'lurked.'......And learned. I'm obviously a member of 'CalGuns', CRPA and NRA. I don't have NEAR the inside knowledge or pedigree as any of you here..........

But I'm not stupid. It seems to me that most of you would not be satisfied until CRPA gets taken over by 'CalGuns' and you can run it the way you want !!! Why do you keep moving the goal posts ??? What right do ANY of you have to DEMAND that CRPA make changes at a pace that you find acceptable??? Especially, by your own admission, you're not even a CRPA member???!!! BWO is right, put up or shut up. Constantly complaining and threatening CRPA on CalGuns is not gonna bring about squat.....!!!! I keep reading how 'CalGuns' operates in real time.....that's great......not all organizations have that luxury.....nor should they. Personally, as a CRPA member, some of you guys are pretty scary and I don't want you anywhere near MY organization !!! Petition the NRA to disaffiliate the CRPA in California!!!??? Even I can see what a really bad idea that is.......and as a CRPA member, I would be really, really pissed at CalGuns!!!

I don't know what all the answers are....but I'm willing to try to look for them.....I have a vested interest in CRPA and it's success.......I am after all, an actual member........

Kestryll
12-18-2008, 11:21 AM
I have been following all the various threads dealing with CRPA for quite a while now. I have posted a few times, but mostly just 'lurked.'......And learned. I'm obviously a member of 'CalGuns', CRPA and NRA. I don't have NEAR the inside knowledge or pedigree as any of you here..........

But I'm not stupid. It seems to me that most of you would not be satisfied until CRPA gets taken over by 'CalGuns' and you can run it the way you want !!!
Wrong. What we want is an organization that puts the power in the hands of the members not a select group of 'chosen ones'.
In recent years the CRPA has been either absent or detrimental on the legislative front due to the representation in Sacramento.
We want that to change and change now.
When something is bleeding do you hope for clotting down the road or apply pressure now?


Why do you keep moving the goal posts ??? What right do ANY of you have to DEMAND that CRPA make changes at a pace that you find acceptable??? Especially, by your own admission, you're not even a CRPA member???!!!
WRONG!
As I have stated elsewhere, I AM a member, I paid my dues.
I seem to recall Gene mentioning that he has a Life membership as well.

So you tell me, what exactly is it that you find problematic about the membership, you know the one who send in the money, DEMANDING that the organization that is suppose to represent US do so in a manner that is not harmful to us??
Give me a damn good reason why I SHOULDN'T demand that of them, as a MEMBER????

BWO is right, put up or shut up. Constantly complaining and threatening CRPA on CalGuns is not gonna bring about squat.....!!!! I keep reading how 'CalGuns' operates in real time.....that's great......not all organizations have that luxury.....nor should they. Personally, as a CRPA member, some of you guys are pretty scary and I don't want you anywhere near MY organization !!!
Too bad, we're there and as a member I don't want people who just want to lay down and are okay with whatever happens to be anywhere near MY organization either!!!
Operating in real time is not a 'luxury' in today's world, it is a necessity!
If you can not work within the technological realities of the tiume you have problems and will continue to have them.

Petition the NRA to disaffiliate the CRPA in California!!!??? Even I can see what a really bad idea that is.......and as a CRPA member, I would be really, really pissed at CalGuns!!!
And as a CRPA and Calguns member I'm pretty damn pissed at the other CRPA members who let it slide for so long and allowed this crap to happen!!
How long have you been a member and what did YOU do in the past to prevent this mess?

I don't know what all the answers are....but I'm willing to try to look for them.....I have a vested interest in CRPA and it's success.......I am after all, an actual member........

As Am I, something you obviously missed even though i said in numerous threads here.

We're looking for answers too, the problem is we don't see 'roll over, take it. and let the status quo ride' as an answer.

GuyW
12-18-2008, 11:23 AM
What right do ANY of you have to DEMAND that CRPA make changes at a pace that you find acceptable???

What right?

I'm a f$#@(*& 30+ year LIFE Member...

What right do you have to question our motives??
.

bwiese
12-18-2008, 11:41 AM
What right do ANY of you have to DEMAND that CRPA make
changes at a pace that you find acceptable???



When the incompetence of their leadership affects my RKBA in California, I'm sure as hell gonna speak up (and more).

As an NRA member I have a right to ensure the state gunrights organization it sponsors lives up to its purported function.

The fact that NRA officials in CA have to do all the political work CRPA is really supposed to accomplish is very telling.

The work I and several others here have to perform to get NRF (non-Rostered frame) efforts started to bypass "unsafe handgun" BS derives from CRPA failure (and Upholt's link to CAFR's atrocious Kathy Lynch). These folks brought the safe handgun BS to California, and I am trying to negate their efforts/incompetence.

artherd
12-18-2008, 12:53 PM
What right do ANY of you have to DEMAND that CRPA make changes at a pace that you find acceptable???

I'm a Life member of CRPA, so my authority comes under California corporations law.

I am also a life member of NRA.

Next?

I don't know what all the answers are....but I'm willing to try to look for them.....I have a vested interest in CRPA and it's success.......I am after all, an actual member........

Gerry?

oaklander
12-18-2008, 1:48 PM
I don't have NEAR the inside knowledge or pedigree as any of you here..........

That is correct. The bottom line is that certain people who KNOW about California firearms rights (and the history thereof) don't like the CRPA right now.

What right do ANY of you have to DEMAND that CRPA make changes at a pace that you find acceptable???

Um, since they want our money?

Especially, by your own admission, you're not even a CRPA member???!!! BWO is right, put up or shut up.

The main players in this discussion are all CRPA members. You might have missed that. I am a proud NON-MEMBER, since I don't want my money being used AGAINST firearms rights.

Constantly complaining and threatening CRPA on CalGuns is not gonna bring about squat.....!!!!

You might have missed the part about disaffiliation. I predict that unless CRPA changes, and changes fast, they will get disaffiliated. You will know more after the meeting in SoCal today. Don't underestimate who the players who are in this little fight, and what they are capable of.

I keep reading how 'CalGuns' operates in real time.....that's great......not all organizations have that luxury.....nor should they.

Incorrect. It's not a luxury. It's a requirement today.

Personally, as a CRPA member, some of you guys are pretty scary and I don't want you anywhere near MY organization !!!

By "scary," do you mean asking for accountability and change? Let's see, you've got Bill, the person who wrote the AK-AR FAQ, and more than anyone is responsible for much of the OLL (and now NRF) revolution. You've got Ben, the owner of the first OLL in California, and another primary player in the OLL fight, as well as the host of Calguns. You've got Kes, the owner of Calguns. You've got Gene, the founder of the CGF and a constant thorn in the side of the DOJ. You've got me. Are we scary because we get things done?

Petition the NRA to disaffiliate the CRPA in California!!!??? Even I can see what a really bad idea that is.......and as a CRPA member, I would be really, really pissed at CalGuns!!!

That's OK.

6172crew
12-18-2008, 1:58 PM
Gerry?

LOL, kidding aside what if we start a vote here for the cgunners we would like to see on the cpra board and pick the top 20 and get them appointed? I'm not a cpra member so I'm not even sure it could be done.

DDT
12-18-2008, 2:09 PM
Kes,

You keep saying nothing is changing, but you don't know that. All you know or anyone knows, is that nothing HAS changed.


This is EXACTLY the problem. You point it out so succinctly. No one knows anything that the CRPA is doing or planning on doing or how it is done.

We do know that the CRPA claims to represent people who have no voice and that they have been completely unresponsive to their membership and non-member constituency up to and including today.

Inviting a calguns member onto the board is no change whatever if the member has no authority and the community still has no visibility or input on the organization. I'm quite confident that a number of board members have accounts on calguns and are therefore calgunners that doesn't mean they are or plan to respond to the outcry of their member/constituency.

lavgrunt
12-18-2008, 4:29 PM
.....For those of you who ARE CRPA members and posting here, good for you !!! I will embrace any ideas you have to make our organizattion better.........As for the rest of you..... Some of you are very articulate, polite and make perfectly good sense. You are presenting valid arguements in a very civil way......the rest of you are abrasive, condescending, bomb throwing zealots who think that the CRPA should cave in to whatever you want and if they don't, you would rather destroy and gut the entire organization.....you attack people by name, but don't provide any proof and you crucify John Fields for having the nerve to ignore you.......I don't blame him!! He posted here a few times and you absolutely slaughtered him and treated him like you were a bunch of inquisitors !!! I'm glad he's blowing you off and won't give you the time of day........You don't deserve his attention.......I believe in the CRPA and what's it's trying to do and all I want to do is keep my guns, maybe get some gun rights back and assist like minded organizations/individuals...........

Don't ever try to treat me like you treated Fields !!! I don't have to answer to anyone here, for a damn thing..........You wanna talk about the issues and the CRPA, fine lets do it.........but don't dare call me on the carpet like I'm some friggin' six year old who just stole a cookie.............

Kestryll
12-18-2008, 5:02 PM
.....For those of you who ARE CRPA members and posting here, good for you !!! I will embrace any ideas you have to make our organizattion better.........As for the rest of you..... Some of you are very articulate, polite and make perfectly good sense. You are presenting valid arguements in a very civil way......the rest of you are abrasive, condescending, bomb throwing zealots who think that the CRPA should cave in to whatever you want and if they don't, you would rather destroy and gut the entire organization.....
Did you even read ANY of what was written?
No we DON'T want to destroy it, we want it to actually work and be effective instead of detrimental.
And YES, I want it to be the way I as a MEMBER feel it should.
Do you really think I should just shut up, pay my money and let them do whatever even if it harms our rights?
Sorry, I don't play that way.

you attack people by name, but don't provide any proof
Again, did you not read the part where what we're calling him to task about was what CAME OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH???
Were you there in Anaheim? Did you hear him?
If not you're throwing accusations based on nothing.
I was, I did and I know what I heard and who said it.
and you crucify John Fields for having the nerve to ignore you.......I don't blame him!!
Of course you don't, you were not the one who heard these promises of change to your face.
He posted here a few times and you absolutely slaughtered him and treated him like you were a bunch of inquisitors !!!
You mean when we asked him about the changes he said were going to be coming that NEVER DID?
He didn't post to discuss, he drove by, dropped a press release and drove off.
That's NOT talking, discussing or opening a dialog no matter how you'd like to dress it up.
I'm glad he's blowing you off and won't give you the time of day........You don't deserve his attention.......
Really?
So as a PAYING MEMBER I don't deserve the attention of those who are suppose to be working for ME?
Are you serious?

I believe in the CRPA and what's it's trying to do and all I want to do is keep my guns, maybe get some gun rights back and assist like minded organizations/individuals...........
What rights have you gotten back through the CRPA?
Do you like the 'Safe handgun Roster?
Does that feel like getting your rights back?

Don't ever try to treat me like you treated Fields !!! I don't have to answer to anyone here, for a damn thing..........You wanna talk about the issues and the CRPA, fine lets do it.........but don't dare call me on the carpet like I'm some friggin' six year old who just stole a cookie.............
I'll tell you what, you step in to a position like John did and I'll damn well call you to the carpet if you act the same way. Don't like it? Too dman bad, that's what you sign up for when you step to the front of the bus and take the wheel. If you do that then YES you sure as HELL have to answer to every single one of those people you claim as your members.
It's called responsibility and accountability.
If you don't want that then just send in your dues, sit back and enjoy the downward spiral.

I expect more then that out of people who claim to represent me.


And to make the point yet one more time, long before you turned this in to a pissing match and did your damnedest to turn it in to an 'us vs. them' scenario I offered to push all the bickering to the back burner, by force if necessary, and set up a place for civil, respectful discussion of the issues and concerns. I gave my word on it. Are you telling me I was lying?

Do you really think you're helping to make that happen?
Or is your objective to insure that it does not?

Shotgun Man
12-18-2008, 5:12 PM
Do people know who lavgrunt is or is he just a random voice?

AJAX22
12-18-2008, 5:23 PM
As near as I can tell (and I consider myself to be a pretty observant guy) all of the positive change we have experienced and all the successful activism related to the second amendment in the state of CA has come about as a result of the work of about three dozen individuals.

Three dozen individuals who are for the most part completely disenfranchised from the leadership of the CRPA.

I would love to know what they actually do with all the money they receive, seeing as how other than reminding members to send in dues, begging for money, fear mongering and stealing intellectual property they seem to be rather inert

Magazine rebuild kits - No CRPA involvement
OLL rifles - No CRPA involvement
Home built pistols - No CRPA involvement
Single shot exempt OLL pistols - No CRPA involvement
non single shot OLL pistols (through LEO and family) - No CRPA involvement
NRF's - No CRPA involvement
C&R SBS's - No CRPA involvement
AOW's - No CRPA involvement
OAL smack down of BOF - No CRPA involvement
Magazine locking devices and educating FFL's - No CRPA involvement

Maybe its just me... .but I'm beginning to see a trend.


Two 19 year old kids writing the DOJ and ATF about the legalities of making pistols for their own private use accomplished more with $1 in combined postage for the 2A in California than the CRPA has managed to do in the last Decade (Not counting of course their complicity in selling us all out on the 'drop safety' issue)

Hell, if they would just condescend to post a notice in their next pirated 'info' distribution which states :

"PRIVATE SALES OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS WHICH ARE OVER 50 YEARS OLD BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE COMPLETELY LEGAL IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND DO NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF AN FFL. THEY ALSO DO NOT REQUIRE A WAITING PERIOD, DOCUMENTATION OF ANY KIND, A LOCKING DEVICE, OR ANY NOTIFICATION OF ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY"

It would be a huge education to the vast majority of CA gun owners.

If they want to do something for the RKBA in CA, they can start by asking what it is that gun owners in CA should know about the gun laws in CA that are not common knowledge.

One Freaking pamphlet summary on the laws that covered, 50 year old gun sales, Open Cary, OLL's, Home built firearms, the legality of unregistered pistols, magazine rebuild kits, C&R SBS's and SBR's, how to get an 03FFL and receive firearms in the mail, how to use an 03FFL to purchase C&R handguns in Nevada, How to get a pistol which is not on the drop safety test into the state of CA, how to bypass the CLEO sign off and get an NFA trust set up so you can own AOW's and SBR/SBS's..... well that would be a good use of the large quantities of funds that they've effectively swindled from gun owners in what looks for all the world like a confidence scheme with 2A window dressing.

/rant

ke6guj
12-18-2008, 5:24 PM
He posted here a few times and you absolutely slaughtered him and treated him like you were a bunch of inquisitors !!!
He posted once in July right after the NRA meeting and didn't respond to any questions in the thread he posted in.

Then, in on December 5th, he hopped in and dropped off a press-release. He hasn't even logged in since then, so he hasn't even read what was posted. Had he stuck around for a bit, he could have answered questions as they came in, or at least logged in a day or two later to see the reaction to his post and maybe clarified it if need-be. But, nope, post and run, and when people want more info, are not around to bring people over to his side.

artherd
12-18-2008, 5:41 PM
Don't ever try to treat me like you treated Fields !!! I don't have to answer to anyone here, for a damn thing..........You wanna talk about the issues and the CRPA, fine lets do it.........but don't dare call me on the carpet like I'm some friggin' six year old who just stole a cookie.............

This comes with the territory of executive responsibility.

I am regularly called on the carpet, so to speak, in many capacities including CGF. It's my job. Period.

oaklander
12-18-2008, 5:58 PM
LAV - you need to read more and post less. You also need to calm down. This isn't personal. We aren't attacking you. We are attacking your words. There is a big difference.

In addition, your "newbiness" is showing here and in other threads. For example, you don't seem to even understand who Bill is:

BW,

I have no idea who you are or who you 'work for'. You seem to be some 'CalGuns Guru' cuz you certainly have a very loyal following. I would be curious to know if you have some sort of legal background?? Based on this thread, I would guess not, because you are taking a huge risk with this.

You posted this in the thread about LE's with unregistered AW's. You probably have no idea why Bill wants that information.

There are numerous people who have put a lot of hard work to protect YOUR rights. Bill is one of them. Gene is another, as is Ben and Paul. I am too. Perhaps you heard about the AW memo that was posted at the DOJ website and how it was pulled down after certain people petitioned the OAL to remove it. Me and Gene are those "certain people." It's partially because we "did what we did" that you can use bullet buttons in this state.

That's just one example of the people you are dealing with in this thread, and what we have done for YOU. What has Mr. John Fields done? What has the CRPA done?

Again, you need to calm down, learn who the players are, and listen to what people say. The more you know, the more you will realize why we are right on this issue.

.....For those of you who ARE CRPA members and posting here, good for you !!! I will embrace any ideas you have to make our organizattion better.........As for the rest of you..... Some of you are very articulate, polite and make perfectly good sense. You are presenting valid arguements in a very civil way......the rest of you are abrasive, condescending, bomb throwing zealots who think that the CRPA should cave in to whatever you want and if they don't, you would rather destroy and gut the entire organization.....you attack people by name, but don't provide any proof and you crucify John Fields for having the nerve to ignore you.......I don't blame him!! He posted here a few times and you absolutely slaughtered him and treated him like you were a bunch of inquisitors !!! I'm glad he's blowing you off and won't give you the time of day........You don't deserve his attention.......I believe in the CRPA and what's it's trying to do and all I want to do is keep my guns, maybe get some gun rights back and assist like minded organizations/individuals...........

Don't ever try to treat me like you treated Fields !!! I don't have to answer to anyone here, for a damn thing..........You wanna talk about the issues and the CRPA, fine lets do it.........but don't dare call me on the carpet like I'm some friggin' six year old who just stole a cookie.............

oaklander
12-18-2008, 6:07 PM
The discussion on this board is frank, robust, and at times quite adversarial. If you post something, you had better be prepared to back it up. That's the way we work here.

I think Bill, Gene et al have posted many verifiable truths about the CRPA in this thread. You have posted something to the effect of "I like them and you better not disparage them." That's not going to hold any water here.

Tell me ONE SINGLE THING that the CRPA has done that's at the level of what Calguns, CGF, and the NRA has done. You can't, since there is nothing.

Don't ever try to treat me like you treated Fields !!! I don't have to answer to anyone here, for a damn thing..........You wanna talk about the issues and the CRPA, fine lets do it.........but don't dare call me on the carpet like I'm some friggin' six year old who just stole a cookie.............

artherd
12-18-2008, 6:34 PM
The discussion on this board is frank, robust, and at times quite adversarial.

Wow, that's NOTHING LIKE the legislative & executive community, at all! I've been going about this all wrong - turns out you totally can make effective change by whining about how unfair a discussion is, rather than addressing the issues. What do you say Kevin? Ready to whine and hold hands for change?

;)

oaklander
12-18-2008, 6:38 PM
Sounds like a party!

Wow, that's NOTHING LIKE the legislative & executive community, at all! I've been going about this all wrong - turns out you totally can make effective change by whining about how unfair a discussion is, rather than addressing the issues. What do you say Kevin? Ready to whine and hold hands for change?

;)

383green
12-18-2008, 7:59 PM
don't dare call me on the carpet like I'm some friggin' six year old

You have an unusual knack for delightful irony.

jrsportssupply
12-18-2008, 8:48 PM
I am sitting here looking at my CRPA renewal letter. Should I re-up or send the money to CGF instead?

sorensen440
12-18-2008, 8:55 PM
I am sitting here looking at my CRPA renewal letter. Should I re-up or send the money to CGF instead?

CGF of course :cool:

wilit
12-18-2008, 9:11 PM
Here's a serious suggestion for the CRPA from a member... Please stop wasting money by sending unsolicited address labels. No joke, I've been a member for a year and have 500+ address labels. What does that cost to print and send to just me, let alone the other CRPA members out there?

Spend that money defeating Senate and Assembly bills please.

artherd
12-18-2008, 9:23 PM
I am sitting here looking at my CRPA renewal letter. Should I re-up or send the money to CGF instead?

Totally your call, but you can see here what CGF has done here, with about 1/30th the annual budget of CRPA.

Imagine what we could do with equivalent funds...

Personally, I am a CRPA life member, but I won't be donating any more until they reform.

Bruce
12-18-2008, 10:49 PM
........but don't dare call me on the carpet like I'm some friggin' six year old who just stole a cookie.............

Why? if any one does are you going to pack up your toys and run off home?
You sound more like you're embarassed that you've thrown your money down a rat-hole. Stow the ego. Let Fields defend himself.

lavgrunt
12-18-2008, 11:16 PM
HAHAHA !!! I love 'CalGuns' !!! I'm not going anywhere......I'm here to listen and learn.....And occasionally post.........You guys have become like family and you have noooo idea how much you've taught me and 'opened my eyes.......' I feel soooooo 'enlightened !!!!'

.....Thank you for your understanding and paitcience.........and for indulging my 'ignorance and naiivete.....'

oaklander
12-18-2008, 11:49 PM
We are not coming down on you - rather we are simply encouraging you to debate the issues. We are glad you are here!

HAHAHA !!! I love 'CalGuns' !!! I'm not going anywhere......I'm here to listen and learn.....And occasionally post.........You guys have become like family and you have know idea how much you've taught me and 'opened my eyes.......' I feel soooooo 'enlightened !!!!'

.....Thank you for your understanding and paitcience.........and for indulging my 'ignorance and naiivete.....'