PDA

View Full Version : CRPA: Petition Candidates Passes


hoffmang
02-14-2009, 12:48 PM
All,

CRPA as of a few moments ago has amended their bylaws to both modernize the basic system that director candidates become nominated for the board and to add a real petition board member candidate system.

Any CRPA member in good standing can stand for election to the Programs and Coalitions Development Activity Committee by obtaining 100 signatures of CRPA members in good standing and submitting them to the Executive Director. Members of the Coalitions Committee are full board members of CRPA. The top 6 petition candidates as voted on during the yearly ballot will fill the Committee and if there remain openings they'll be filled by the usual nominating committee.

The nominating committee is now appointed by secret ballot of the entire board and chooses its own Chairman.

This is a real governance fail safe device. However, I expect that those who are basically qualified for the CRPA board and its committees will easily be accepted through the nominating committee as well. I will be assisting in getting the word out about how to become involved with CRPA. Watch this forum.

I'll try to keep an eye on this thread, but I'm still at the board meeting. This is an excellent beginning and we all should be much more comfortable that the new CRPA will continue to move forward with all of the coalition for the betterment of all California gun owners.

-Gene

lavgrunt
02-14-2009, 1:01 PM
WOWWWW!!! That's great news !!! I'm glad I didn't give up on CRPA, despite all the 'CalGuns' nay-sayers !!!

Why are you at the board meeting??!! Is it open to the public or just members?? I would imagine 'members only'........

Keep us posted and thanks for the great win!!!

hoffmang
02-14-2009, 1:23 PM
My understanding is that the board meetings are open to all members and invited guests except when in executive session (which is rare.) CRPA hasn't done a good job publicizing that fact.

-Gene

bwiese
02-14-2009, 2:45 PM
I was with Gene today at the CRPA board meeting, and am pleased to see this good Forward Progress.

I think the new CRPA (leadership/board and membership) 'gets it' and there's genuine interest in focus, coalition building and now have understanding that New Folks Are Not Evil. With the changes Gene nicely summarized above, there's a genuine ability to bring in folks that may have shied away before due perception of lack of openness/welcome.

I am now a CRPA member. (Thanks for the efforts and the warm welcome, John. Let's go get those 100K new members and shake up Sacramento.)

Zebra
02-14-2009, 3:27 PM
Excellent! I just renewed my membership and I am happy that now all my donation stay in California.

The CRPA website, however, still needs help...:D

Frank

jmlivingston
02-14-2009, 4:05 PM
This is exciting! They will be receiving my dues for membership next payday, and it'll probably be a "family membership" rather than just an individual membership.

John

ivanimal
02-14-2009, 4:08 PM
As a recent member how do I throw my hat in the ring now?

Can'thavenuthingood
02-14-2009, 4:20 PM
Someone post a link here to sign up for membership and take money via the easy way.

Is GunPal ready?

Vick

ke6guj
02-14-2009, 4:23 PM
Someone post a link here to sign up for membership and take money via the easy way. http://www.crpa.org/dept.aspx?dept_id=01

jmlivingston
02-14-2009, 4:23 PM
Here you go: http://www.crpa.org/dept.aspx?dept_id=01

Can'thavenuthingood
02-14-2009, 4:46 PM
Okay, signed up on a 1 year membership for $22.

By the end of that year I'd expect to see positive changes. Left a note saying my signing up was due to Gene and Bill saying things are looking up over there.

So Kathy Lynch doesn't work for CRPA anymore huh?

Vick

chickenfried
02-14-2009, 5:08 PM
Do you think things would've changed without those nay-sayers?
WOWWWW!!! That's great news !!! I'm glad I didn't give up on CRPA, despite all the 'CalGuns' nay-sayers !!!

DDT
02-14-2009, 5:14 PM
I will be joining CRPA this week.

jmlivingston
02-14-2009, 5:24 PM
You know everyone, that it's not too late to buy a membership for your "Better Half" today, as a Valentines present! :1eye:

Can'thavenuthingood
02-14-2009, 5:28 PM
My guess is the CRPA is dreaming of the Nay-sayers coming with open wallets and handbags.

"the nay-sayers are coming, the nay-sayers are coming"

Vick

CaliforniaLiberal
02-14-2009, 6:25 PM
Renewed CRPA membership.

Thanks to Gene Hoffman and Bill Wiese all who sail with them! May discouragement and apathy strike the hearts of all our enemies!

Good Work! Excellent Results!

CL

jrsportssupply
02-14-2009, 7:20 PM
I had held off renewing my membership until now. Thanks Gene & Bill!

wildhawker
02-14-2009, 7:45 PM
Nice work, guys! This only makes us stronger. Once again, the Calguns voice is heard.

The times they are a-changin'.

7x57
02-14-2009, 8:17 PM
I think CRPA was under pressure to do something like this from all sides. I know the national NRA wanted better member representation too.

Good show to all who contributed to make it happen.

7x57

MindBuilder
02-14-2009, 9:11 PM
Wait a minute. It's still not clear to me that the CRPA is OUR organization yet. Am I misunderstanding or are they only allowing ONE committee to be elected by the members? This mess has made me realize that I don't want the primary organization representing us to be OWNED by some little group of individuals who do what they want. The members must own the organization and have COMPLETE control of it through fair and open democratic elections. I don't have a problem with supporting a supplemental non-profit organization controlled by a closed board, if I agree with its policy, but the primary gun rights organization in California ought to be wholly controlled by its members.

So the question is: Are ALL the board members going to be elected in an election where anyone with a reasonable amount of member support can get on the ballot?

If not, the NRA needs to send out a notice to all California members not to continue supporting the CRPA.

And the board members who re-hired the lobbyist they knew we didn't like to another two year contract, need to be removed from the board.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-14-2009, 9:47 PM
And the board members who re-hired the lobbyist they knew we didn't like to another two year contract, need to be removed from the board. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2038367)

What? Kathy? still there as a lobbyist?

Vick

hoffmang
02-15-2009, 12:42 AM
We are not done yet. 1/3 of board members are voted in each year by ballot in The Firing Line. What has changed is that 6 do not have to come through the nominating committee.

In other news, the nominating committee now includes Joel Freidman (CA NRA Board member.) As I said above, I'll very shortly have instructions for how to both petition or go through the nominating process.

One more item of business must be completed to be complete, but the steps today are real and serious steps in the right direction.

-Gene

jdberger
02-15-2009, 1:10 AM
NIce job, Gentlemen. This has been a long time coming.

It's better that we all work with each other.

lavgrunt
02-15-2009, 8:28 AM
Wait a minute. It's still not clear to me that the CRPA is OUR organization yet. Am I misunderstanding or are they only allowing ONE committee to be elected by the members? This mess has made me realize that I don't want the primary organization representing us to be OWNED by some little group of individuals who do what they want. The members must own the organization and have COMPLETE control of it through fair and open democratic elections. I don't have a problem with supporting a supplemental non-profit organization controlled by a closed board, if I agree with its policy, but the primary gun rights organization in California ought to be wholly controlled by its members.

So the question is: Are ALL the board members going to be elected in an election where anyone with a reasonable amount of member support can get on the ballot?

If not, the NRA needs to send out a notice to all California members not to continue supporting the CRPA.

And the board members who re-hired the lobbyist they knew we didn't like to another two year contract, need to be removed from the board.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME !!!???? Some of you just won't be happy until you run the whole damn thing !!! I WILL NEVER SUPPORT ANY ZEALOTS !!!! This is the kinda BS that causes the CRPA to be so leery about organizations like CalGuns......Give me a break.....What a freakin' embarrassment......I hope you never join.....Just continue to be part of the problem not the solution.....

jmlivingston
02-15-2009, 8:36 AM
Wait a minute. It's still not clear to me that the CRPA is OUR organization yet. Am I misunderstanding or are they only allowing ONE committee to be elected by the members? This mess has made me realize that I don't want the primary organization representing us to be OWNED by some little group of individuals who do what they want. The members must own the organization and have COMPLETE control of it through fair and open democratic elections. I don't have a problem with supporting a supplemental non-profit organization controlled by a closed board, if I agree with its policy, but the primary gun rights organization in California ought to be wholly controlled by its members.

So the question is: Are ALL the board members going to be elected in an election where anyone with a reasonable amount of member support can get on the ballot?

If not, the NRA needs to send out a notice to all California members not to continue supporting the CRPA.

And the board members who re-hired the lobbyist they knew we didn't like to another two year contract, need to be removed from the board.

It's like everything else we do around here in regards to regaining our 2A rights, take a deep breath and smile widely with each baby step as it comes. It's "incrementalism", that's how we lost our rights and that's how we're going to get them back. Same philosophy should be applied towards our relations with the CRPA, and when they do something "right" they need to be rewarded for it.

John

Kestryll
02-15-2009, 9:03 AM
ARE YOU KIDDING ME !!!???? Some of you just won't be happy until you run the whole damn thing !!! I WILL NEVER SUPPORT ANY ZEALOTS !!!! This is the kinda BS that causes the CRPA to be so leery about organizations like CalGuns......Give me a break.....What a freakin' embarrassment......I hope you never join.....Just continue to be part of the problem not the solution.....

So in other words you don't want anyone to join who doesn't think like you, have the same ideas as you and don't share your view of how things should be.

Got it.


Hypocritical ZEALOT.....

Californio
02-15-2009, 9:24 AM
Congratulations Gentlemen :thumbsup:

hoffmang
02-15-2009, 9:31 AM
I WILL NEVER SUPPORT ANY ZEALOTS !!!! This is the kinda BS that causes the CRPA to be so leery about organizations like CalGuns......

Lav,

Congratulations on your advancement as an officer of CRPA. I think it might be wise to be honest with the community that you are more than a disinterested observer.

-Gene

lavgrunt
02-15-2009, 9:36 AM
So in other words you don't want anyone to join who doesn't think like you, have the same ideas as you and don't share your view of how things should be.

Got it.


Hypocritical ZEALOT.....

How the heck do you come to that conclusion??!!! My point is, change is happening, quit moving the goal posts. I believe in CRPA and welcome the changes thus far that have occurred.....Thanks to Gene and Bill for being paitient, persistant and fair.......

It's got nothing to do with thinking like me or not......Frankly, I couldn't care less if you think like me about CRPA or not......Just be reasonable, that's all......

hoffmang
02-15-2009, 9:41 AM
Just be reasonable, that's all......

Reasonable often requires transparency and disclosure. It's good to see progress on that transparency, but I just want to point out that non-transparency does cause certain concerns.

-Gene

lavgrunt
02-15-2009, 9:41 AM
Lav,

Congratulations on your advancement as an officer of CRPA. I think it might be wise to be honest with the community that you are more than a disinterested observer.

-Gene

Thanks Gene !!! And congratulations to you for being appointed to the Board of Directors......Glad to have you onboard and I look forward to working with you......!!!

Being a 'disinterested observer' has served it's purpose very well.....So I guess it was time to come 'out of the closet'.....LOL !!!!

Kestryll
02-15-2009, 9:45 AM
How the heck do you come to that conclusion??!!! My point is, change is happening, quit moving the goal posts. I believe in CRPA and welcome the changes thus far that have occurred.....Thanks to Gene and Bill for being paitient, persistant and fair.......

It's got nothing to do with thinking like me or not......Frankly, I couldn't care less if you think like me about CRPA or not......Just be reasonable, that's all......

Define reasonable.

I, as a paying member, define reasonable as having a voice and a say in what the organization that takes my money and claims to represent me does and it's goals.

Not a voice where I can ask and hope that at best I don't get ignored but a voice that helps shape the goals, policies and future of MY organization.

One thing CRPA needs to realize and adapt to is how quickly the landscape changes and how important it is to adapt to it and to it's members views and interests in a timely fashion.

Yes, patience is required but so is action.
members have been display ENORMOUS patients for years, is it a surprise that when things finally start happening they become excited and want to see the ball keep rolling?

You call it 'moving the goal posts', from where I sit the goal posts are in the same place we've just not made it there yet. Yes, the 40 yard gain is fantastic but the 10 yard line is not a touchdown.

This is an important step forward and no one is discounting that, the concern is that this is not seen as reason to stop and that the forward motion continues.

Massive kudos to Gene, Bill and the CRPA Board, you've got the ball, keep going for the touchdown.

hoffmang
02-15-2009, 9:49 AM
And congratulations to you for being appointed to the Board of Directors.

I look forward to having the membership elect me.

-Gene

bwiese
02-15-2009, 9:49 AM
Lavgrunt,

I'm glad you understand that problems of the past were well-nigh untenable - yet we have high hopes the "new & fresh" CRPA continues to develop on its new path while retaining all the good things of the past - administering tournaments, putting a good face on gun ownership in CA, etc.

This is a critical year for gunnies in CA and we trust that CRPA's legislative activities in Sacramento will not be beholden to specialty side interests/relationships and interfere with some big progress we have planned (or contribute to antigun outcomes). Gene and I understand that in the past this is far less the fault of CRPA leadership than the actual individual in question - as public representations vs private actions did indeed differ. Thanks for understanding us.

lavgrunt
02-15-2009, 9:57 AM
.....I do indeed, as do many others.......

Can'thavenuthingood
02-15-2009, 10:22 AM
How many board members does CRPA have? The website doesn't give any information regarding a board of directors or what it takes to become one.
As a paid member of CRPA am I able to become a voting board member?

What is the hieracrchy of CRPA?

Who are the CRPA Foundation officials? The Foundations page has no listing of its officials.

The 'About us' page of CRPA has the Mission Statement but nothing "About Us". Who exactly is us?

Who does the CRPA have as Lobbyists representing my firearms interests (as a paid CRPA member) in Sacramento?

Same old questions, same goal posts.

One year,

Vick

DDT
02-15-2009, 10:38 AM
How many board members does CRPA have? The website doesn't give any information regarding a board of directors or what it takes to become one.
As a paid member of CRPA am I able to become a voting board member?


Interesting. I had not noticed that. It is rather suspicious that a group wanting your money in exchange for representing you doesn't tell you who is doing the representation.

Perhaps it is just an oversight on the part of the web developer and can be quickly corrected by adding a listing of the Board and their bios to the website.

bwiese
02-15-2009, 10:44 AM
Who are the CRPA Foundation officials? The Foundations page has no listing of its officials.
The 'About us' page of CRPA has the Mission Statement but nothing "About Us". Who exactly is us?


I believe that is more the issue with CRPA's web presence needing refinement than playing hide & seek.

The CRPA Foundation is working with the NRA foundation and will have pretty formal oversight since NRA funds are being disbursed.

hoffmang
02-15-2009, 10:59 AM
Can't,

I'm here to help a bit on some of your questions.

Starting Monday (or as soon as the clean draft as approved is in the ED's hands) you can call/email/or walk in and get a copy of the bylaws and articles of incorporation.

There are about 40 members currently on the board. I'll be posting more details about both how to petition and how separately to be nominated to the board through committees.

-Gene

sorensen440
02-15-2009, 11:08 AM
This is definitely a step in the right direction and as promised I just joined.

sorensen440
02-15-2009, 11:12 AM
Safe to join now ?
Yes

HunterJim
02-15-2009, 11:57 AM
Thanks for the good work, I just joined.

jim

Sunwolf
02-15-2009, 12:03 PM
As a former member I will wait to rejoin until I see how things shake out.In the past joining CRPA has been a wasted effort.

artherd
02-15-2009, 12:12 PM
ARE YOU KIDDING ME !!!???? Some of you just won't be happy until you run the whole damn thing !!! I WILL NEVER SUPPORT ANY ZEALOTS !!!! This is the kinda BS that causes the CRPA to be so leery about organizations like CalGuns......Give me a break.....What a freakin' embarrassment......I hope you never join.....Just continue to be part of the problem not the solution.....

Touched a nerve with the thought of yanking NRA support did we? I could see how that could upset a current Director/Officer of CRPA...

Can'thavenuthingood
02-15-2009, 12:22 PM
Thanks Gene.

I was a member then dropped it.

I rejoined CRPA to assist Gene and Bill, a showing of numbers for positive results.

The CRPA website says 63,000+ members.

Vick

lavgrunt
02-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Touched a nerve with the thought of yanking NRA support did we? I could see how that could upset a current Director/Officer of CRPA...

.....Why would u yank support for the NRA ?? I'm very confused.......

ke6guj
02-15-2009, 1:01 PM
.....Why would u yank support for the NRA ?? I'm very confused.......

I thought it was said that the NRA was so unhappy with the CRPA, that the NRA was thinking about dropping the CRPA as its state-affiliate.

chickenfried
02-15-2009, 1:39 PM
ahh that explains the hostility.

a current Director/Officer of CRPA...

MindBuilder
02-15-2009, 1:49 PM
I didn't pay enough attention to the tone of my last post, so I want to make clear that I greatly appreciate what the CRPA and its board have done to protect our gun rights in California. Even if they made some mistakes, and I'm not even sure they did, I still consider the board to be friends and allies.

lavgrunt wrote:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME !!!???? Some of you just won't be happy until you run the whole damn thing !!! I WILL NEVER SUPPORT ANY ZEALOTS !!!!
I think Churchill said something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." If I'm a zealot for wanting the primary gun rights organization in California to be governed by a democratic process, then I'm proud to be a zealot. Yes, the members want to run the whole damn organization. Or at least some of us want the members to. Note that I'm not calling for CRPA to do the things I want it to do. I'm calling for it to do the things it's members want to do, instead of just what the in crowd on the board want.

I'd especially like to thank Gene Hoffman and the others who are trying to drag the CRPA along into a representative organization. I think it is better to reform the CRPA rather than try to replace it. The NRA could nuke the CRPA in an instant with a cover story in National Rifleman, but I'm willing to have a little patience in converting the organization. I'm worried though that the CRPA is just making minor changes that appear to be progress, but won't really turn over ultimate control to the membership. They made promises of major change before and then made some insignificant little changes. It may be time soon for the NRA to up the pressure, perhaps even give an ultimatum.

I also think that dissenters in the CRPA need a way to have their voices heard by the CRPA membership. I think maybe the CRPA needs a bulletin board like the calguns forum to be advertised in the Firing Line so that members know where to go to see what the Firing Line editors don't want to publish. Maybe we could even have a system where members vote on the bulletin board comments and the most popular ones could be published in the Firing Line.

The CRPA and similar organizations are going to continue to have a critical role post Heller, as the gun controllers will probably continue to push for every little thing they can to make gun ownership more expensive and more of a hassle, to reduce gun ownership and thereby chip away our political support to the point they can repeal the 2nd.

Matt C
02-15-2009, 2:18 PM
I'm glad we are all on the same team again. Hopefully the CRPA board will quickly implement all the the suggested improvements.

Gene, can you give a run down of how the v-day meeting went?

artherd
02-15-2009, 3:19 PM
.....Why would u yank support for the NRA ?? I'm very confused.......

"I" wouldn't. NRA would be the ones with that ability.

I on the other hand, am looking forward to seeing what the New CRPA becomes!

curtisfong
02-15-2009, 3:21 PM
Being a 'disinterested observer' has served it's purpose very well.....

I'm not sure you fully understand how this makes you appear. There is nothing as loathsome as an astroturfer. Kudos to Gene et al who have consistently been polite, tactful, honest, and above all, who have shown you kindness and fairness you might not deserve, in my eyes at least.

wildhawker
02-15-2009, 3:32 PM
Thanks Gene.

I was a member then dropped it.

I rejoined CRPA to assist Gene and Bill, a showing of numbers for positive results.

The CRPA website says 63,000+ members.

Vick

Taking some good advice (thanks jmlivingston), the wife joined last night with an explicit comment reflecting the board's adoption of the bylaw amendment. We're on board to add momentum to this new direction... things go sideways, we can always not renew next year in protest. However, if things continue positively, I can see many folks donating or renewing as life members.

It will take some time to see what rubber meets the road within CRPA, and to build trust and confidence back amongst the membership. I would be surprised if it isn't at least a year to really trend these changes accurately. Rome wasn't built overnight, and it won't be rebuilt overnight either.

I also think that dissenters in the CRPA need a way to have their voices heard by the CRPA membership. I think maybe the CRPA needs a bulletin board like the calguns forum to be advertised in the Firing Line so that members know where to go to see what the Firing Line editors don't want to publish.

As stated back when C.D. Michel requested ideas as to how CRPA could improve (CRPA 2009 Initiative, here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=144642&highlight=Michel)), the CRPA should establish the "Official CRPA Forum" here at Calguns.net.

I'd bet they received quite a few suggestions worth implementing off the board as well. We'll see, but I'm optomistic this is the beginning of great things.

7x57
02-15-2009, 6:07 PM
Yes, the members want to run the whole damn organization. Or at least some of us want the members to. Note that I'm not calling for CRPA to do the things I want it to do. I'm calling for it to do the things it's members want to do, instead of just what the in crowd on the board want.


What makes that seem more important for the CRPA when other groups are sort of a one-man show is that CRPA seems to be seen to represent the broadest consensus of California gun owners. As such, if it wants to maintain that image the rules should be different for it. To earn the right to represent California gun owners in a special way, it really does have to be responsive in a way that something else might not.


I'm worried though that the CRPA is just making minor changes that appear to be progress, but won't really turn over ultimate control to the membership. They made promises of major change before and then made some insignificant little changes. It may be time soon for the NRA to up the pressure, perhaps even give an ultimatum.


You know, I think I'm going to quit worrying about that. I know of at least two board members who are committed to reforming the CRPA and not just in a cosmetic way, and I have heard them talk enough to believe that they won't be dissuaded by cosmetics. With this sign of progress, I think I am quite justified in trusting Gene and Joel to insist on real changes and to let people know if things are going irredeemably wrong.

I'm also quite confident that both of them are quite capable of making quite a nuisance of themselves if given a line of BS. :43:

7x57

berto
02-15-2009, 6:41 PM
Can't,

I'm here to help a bit on some of your questions.

Starting Monday (or as soon as the clean draft as approved is in the ED's hands) you can call/email/or walk in and get a copy of the bylaws and articles of incorporation.

There are about 40 members currently on the board. I'll be posting more details about both how to petition and how separately to be nominated to the board through committees.

-Gene

Good. I emailed a few months ago asking for that very information and have yet to receive a response. I'd like to see those documents and know the current composition of the BOD before I join. I'm happy changes are being made and I look forward to becoming a member.

Kestryll
02-15-2009, 7:28 PM
As stated back when C.D. Michel requested ideas as to how CRPA could improve (CRPA 2009 Initiative, here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=144642&highlight=Michel)), the CRPA should establish the "Official CRPA Forum" here at Calguns.net.

I'd bet they received quite a few suggestions worth implementing off the board as well. We'll see, but I'm optomistic this is the beginning of great things.
I offered back then to create a forum for them and I'll offer it again.
If CRPA wants a sub-forum to talk to, listen to and just communicate with the members I'll set it up.

7x57
02-15-2009, 8:49 PM
I offered back then to create a forum for them and I'll offer it again.
If CRPA wants a sub-forum to talk to, listen to and just communicate with the members I'll set it up.

The problem is there is a cultural mismatch between CRPA and Calguns-style free-for-all chat. I propose this new nominating process be used to nominate someone to the CRPA board who understands the net and Calguns in particular, and who has a skin somewhat thicker than a cape buffalo. That is more or less what is required to give CRPA a good presence here.

Oh, wait, Gene's on the CRPA board now. How thick is your skin, Gene? :p

But realistically there are reasons Gene might not want to be the CRPA point man and tackling dummy. Also, it might be best if it isn't necessarily a long-time Calgunner--but it has to be someone who understands the speed and impatience of the net, and the fact that a normal discussion here might contain words that in another time would have prompted the discussion to continue through seconds, and with an arrangement to meet in a foggy field at dawn somewhere. :chris:

7x57

wildhawker
02-15-2009, 9:05 PM
The problem is there is a cultural mismatch between CRPA and Calguns-style free-for-all chat. I propose this new nominating process be used to nominate someone to the CRPA board who understands the net and Calguns in particular, and who has a skin somewhat thicker than a cape buffalo. That is more or less what is required to give CRPA a good presence here.

Oh, wait, Gene's on the CRPA board now. How thick is your skin, Gene? :p

But realistically there are reasons Gene might not want to be the CRPA point man and tackling dummy. Also, it might be best if it isn't necessarily a long-time Calgunner--but it has to be someone who understands the speed and impatience of the net, and the fact that a normal discussion here might contain words that in another time would have prompted the discussion to continue through seconds, and with an arrangement to meet in a foggy field at dawn somewhere. :chris:

7x57

It is important to cautiously consider how the CRPA will reflect upon (and through) CGF and vice-versa by association of common BoD members; further, time considerations must also be made- how much can be piled upon a few key but nonetheless human people? This is not in any way a lack of confidence, but simply a concern for burnout. That all being said, I'm very excited for the opportunities that this will present and hope we can all help to get this big boulder moving again, and in the right direction.

I also hope that CRPA takes Kestryll up on his offer, which is quite generous and worthy of serious consideration. My original thought was that the moderator(s) of the Calguns.net CRPA Forum would become liasons of sorts to the CRPA BoD (through committee?) to allow for real-time discussion on the net and organization-time dissemination and deliberation.

artherd
02-15-2009, 9:43 PM
WOWWWW!!! That's great news !!! I'm glad I didn't give up on CRPA, despite all the 'CalGuns' nay-sayers !!!


This bothers me. Don't you have a fiduciary duty not to give up on the CRPA?

Sunwolf
02-16-2009, 5:03 AM
In the past trying to communucate with the CRPA has been like getting a response from Barbara Boxer on issues.Like I have said before, lets see some positive reform and then I`ll consider joining along with my not inconsiderable tribe.

7x57
02-16-2009, 8:22 AM
It is important to cautiously consider how the CRPA will reflect upon (and through) CGF and vice-versa by association of common BoD members; further, time considerations must also be made- how much can be piled upon a few key but nonetheless human people?


I agree--what happened was that once I wrote that it suddenly occurred to me that technically Gene fit the person I was describing. But in reality I don't think Gene is the person for many reasons--for one, Gene is inseparably linked to Calguns. What CRPA needs is someone who more or less groks Calguns but is clearly linked to CRPA much more strongly than Calguns.

Oh, yeah, and whoever they are, they should be CXP4 class thick-skinned game for those times when people want to work out a little frustration on the "CRPA guy." :chris:

7x57

SwissFluCase
02-16-2009, 9:52 AM
I agree--what happened was that once I wrote that it suddenly occurred to me that technically Gene fit the person I was describing. But in reality I don't think Gene is the person for many reasons--for one, Gene is inseparably linked to Calguns. What CRPA needs is someone who more or less groks Calguns but is clearly linked to CRPA much more strongly than Calguns.

Oh, yeah, and whoever they are, they should be CXP4 class thick-skinned game for those times when people want to work out a little frustration on the "CRPA guy." :chris:

7x57

7x57, you are coming dangerously close to volunteering! :p

Seriously, my impression of the CRPA is that it was forged through decades of one to many communication technologies, and is still stuck there. Calguns of course is the opposite. I'm sure many here are CRPA members, and I myself am about to rejoin today. As long as the CRPA and Calguns exist, we will need to work together.

The biggest threat that gun owners face is the Balkanization of the lobbying organizations. One of the reasons the gun bans succeeded in England was that there was no national gun rights organization like the NRA. There are separate interest groups for every shooting discipline, and they don't look out for each other's interests. The anti's called that "divide and conquer".

I absolutely want a to see CRPA subforum on this board. I see no reason why CRPA needs to reinvent the wheel on this one. Those CRPA members with a grass roots mentality are probably already here anyway. I think pursuing this should be a priority once we are able. The benefit would not only be a forum to discuss CRPA business, but would also be a place to quickly disseminate time critical information and formulate grass roots responses.

One of the reasons I joined Calguns was for the grass roots efforts. The last Presidential election taught us that those groups that use Internet 2.0 and social networking technologies will prevail. The CRPA is not prepared to exploit these technologies, but we are. We can help bring the CRPA into the 21st century.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
02-16-2009, 10:01 AM
7x57, you are coming dangerously close to volunteering! :p


Well, for starters, I don't actually belong to the CRPA. Last time I was spending money on lobbying organizations was a while back, and as they were not always cooperating with the groups with all their ducks in a row (basically the NRA and Calguns) I decided I could spend it more effectively. I think I spent some of it and a lot more on election guns. :D I guess I'm going to have to join soon.


The biggest threat that gun owners face is the Balkanization of the lobbying organizations.

Yep. We will lose future fights we should win because of this, for example all the people who belong to GOA but not the NRA because the NRA isn't perfect. It is simply impossible to convince some people that no matter how ideologically pure that may be, it will cost them in which rights can legally be exercised.

The right procedure is to join the NRA, then join whatever other groups you like in addition. But for God's sake, don't do the antis job for them.

7x57

hoffmang
02-16-2009, 10:48 AM
Gents,

I'm just traveling back. I'll post more later this evening.

-Gene

SwissFluCase
02-16-2009, 11:07 AM
I've always realized the disconnect between groups like the CRPA and Calguns, but I just got a flash and I think I can articulate it now.

The CRPA is set up to fight a war of attrition. This is how the NRA is setup. The guys running it setup the lobbying organizations with the same strategies that won us WWII. Basically, you have a small group of people who make the strategy decisions in secret, then direct the membership to act. "Print out this form letter, sign it, and send it in, and send us money". The membership in this model are the pike bearers who follow the orders of the leadership without question.

Groups like Calguns are fighting a war of maneuver. The membership, operating in concert with leaders who have proven their leadership ability, detect and neutralize threats or seize opportunities on our own within a framework defined by the leadership and agreed upon by consensus. We are more like special forces, and the leadership, like Gene, are the tip of the spear.

The problem is that groups like the CRPA have defined a core set of rights they will preserve, and have drawn a line of what they think they can protect, and seem to be willing to give up ground outside of that area. They are playing a defensive battle. Like a basketball team playing a good defense, they will make victory difficult for the opponent, but they will still lose.

To win this war, we must continually take new ground. Playing a defensive war is not good enough. The NRA learned this with the CCW initiatives. They went on the offensive, and retook lost ground. The CRPA is still cornered. Face it, they are on the ropes.

Now we have a fundamental rift between the groups that needs to be bridged. It seems that groups like Calguns see the CRPA fighting trench warfare. It's slow, ugly, and you can't win when you are outnumbered, such that the CRPA is. It also seems that the CRPA sees the Calguns members as being eager to pick a knife fight in a phonebooth with the antis, which is probably a good description.

We at Calguns seem to be comfortable with the idea of a knife fight in a phonebooth. I think this scares the **** out of the CRPA. We would certainly lose if we conducted that phonebooth fight according to their rules. If we strike with speed, aggression, and surprise, we *will* win. In fact, it is the only way we can win when the political deck is stacked against us.

So far, Gene is leaving a trail of phonebooths stuffed with antis, and I really respect that. :43:

The question is how do we bridge these two models? I think they can coexist somewhat, as conflict is by nature fluid, and we must as a group be willing to change our tactics to fit the crisis or opportunity at hand. I feel that Gene and the right people have unquestionably earned their bones. They fight one one front, however. This is as much a political, PR, fundraising, and grassroots organizing war as much as it is a legal one.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
02-16-2009, 11:12 AM
The right procedure is to join the NRA, then join whatever other groups you like in addition. But for God's sake, don't do the antis job for them.

Right on. Everyone, if you haven't, join the NRA and stand up and be counted. We can make our donations where we think they will do good, but at least stand up and be counted. I am an NRA member, and have been for over twenty years. I have also joined and given money to other groups, but none of that is as important as basic solidarity.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Can'thavenuthingood
02-16-2009, 3:13 PM
The one thing that sets Calguns apart from NRA, CRPA and GOA etc is the individual understands the mission prior to acting on the requested action.

In the threads, say AB2728 I think it was, everyone participated and explained their understanding of the legislation. If not understood then it was hashed out again.
So when the Calgunner called the legislator he or she knew exactly what was going on regarding the legislation and could formulate his own arguement for or against the upcoming vote.

I noticed when I received items from the NRA or GOA it was mostly a preprinted arguement and not much indivdual thought or examination was required.

While the Calgunner understood and carried the flag to mission accomplishment.

And being as the Internet is always on, someone is always here to assist with understanding or one could read the entire thread at ones leisure and decide for themselves how to respond and take that course of action.

This is real time, a dynamic the CRPA has not even attempted to take advantage of as we wait again for some some sign of life over there. In the meantime Calgunners are tuned into the legislative session and posting online, making comments to one another about the proceedings.

The NRF is another example. It started as a rant from one of the Calgunners. He was given a few quick answers but he persisted and then everyone started digging and researching and look here now.

Come to Calguns and see action, watch the world change before your very eyes and participate. We have a lot of those 'good men' who are tired of watching nothing happening.

Here we gather.

Vick

Mirage
02-16-2009, 4:51 PM
I am pleasantly surprised with this news.
I really didn't expect the CRPA to make any real changes. From the tone of the few res ponces to complaints about CRPA hear on Calguns. I figured they would just go down with the sinking organization.
I am already a member, so I will have to make a donation if the CRPA follows through.
Thanks to all who managed to work things out with the CRPA.

7x57
02-16-2009, 5:16 PM
From the tone of the few res ponces to complaints about CRPA hear on Calguns. I figured they would just go down with the sinking organization.

Don't forget that on Calguns you don't hear what is being said privately between the national NRA and CRPA. NRA has some big sticks they can use if they really want to, since being the state affiliate seems to be pretty central to so much of what CRPA does (and after all most of what they do is just fine, it's the political and representational parts that seem broken).

I've heard Joel Friedman discuss the CRPA's problems in very frank terms, and I'm quite confident that he won't be bought off. He certainly can represent the national NRA's interests, and they very very much want CRPA fixed because legislative screw-ups in CA means they have to spend lots more money fighting copy-cat laws in a dozen other states. I can't imagine Gene being bought off either, and he's well trusted here. For that matter, Chuck Michel was asked to collect suggestions, and I can't imagine him letting himself be used in a way that would reflect poorly on him so I am sure that *all* the suggestions will reach the board, including the uncomfortable ones. As I said, I'm going to quit worrying because everything that could be expected to happen so far has happened. I'm not worried because things seem to slow for Calgunners, because the CRPA just isn't like Calguns. But every time I do hear news Good People are connected to it, so I feel it would be irrational to second-guess them until I have been given positive cause to do so.

When Joel or Gene or Chuck say I should worry, then I'll worry again. :-)

7x57

bwiese
02-16-2009, 6:09 PM
I've heard Joel Friedman discuss the CRPA's problems in very frank terms,
and I'm quite confident that he won't be bought off.

Joel's a great guy and the idea he could be 'bought off' is ludicrous.
(Besides, how DO you buy off a zillionaire food mogul?)

Kestryll
02-16-2009, 6:39 PM
(Besides, how DO you buy off a zillionaire food mogul?)
With condiments and beverages?

Sure, he's got the food but it's not dinner without condiments and a drink....

hoffmang
02-16-2009, 6:58 PM
First a response to those who think there is something fundamentally different about Calguns and CRPA. I wouldn't put it the way it has been put above. I'd say its more that for a host of completely understandable reasons CRPA and its membership greyed a bit. Calguns attracts a different age and income group than CRPA has in the past. That set of differences plus some things that were not good in the old CRPA lead it to be less relevant and didn't lead it toward creating a product and service that really motivated California gun owners to be involved with CRPA unless they wanted a CMP/DCM rifle or were involved with the competitive shooting side.

I think the opportunity now is to continue the started progress to be able to make the case to every California gun owner that CRPA is of value. We're at the beginning of that so I don't expect everyone here to be sold just yet. The very good news is that there are quite a few CRPA directors who agree and I think that's why you've seen the solid changes so far.

A bit of a recap now:

1. 6 Director slots can be petitioned for with the completing of a petition of 100 members of CRPA. Petitions forms will shortly be available from the ED. However, all a petition needs on it is the name of the candidate, and 100 names, addresses, CRPA numbers, dates, and signatures of CRPA members. The petition candidate need only be a member. However there is a statement in the bylaws that the officers must be Life Members so it behooves a successful petition candidate to become a Life Member before or after being elected.

2. I made sure it was made clear to the ED by board resolution that (as it is required by California Law) the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of CRPA are to be made available to any member who requests them in person, via phone, or email and that the ED should make a physical or electronic copy available to such a member.

3. The radio show was discussed at length. Though there are no final determinations both sides of the value and the cost were clearly debated and there is going to be follow up to make sure that it becomes something of value and not a financial drain on CRPA.

4. CRPA's ED (John Fields) promised that the future annual meetings and galas will not be over Valentine's day - something that had been historically the case and I think a lot of people can agree is bad form.

5. There has been a resurgence in air rifle competition and due to that the air rifle committee was re-instated. Youth shooting is always good news.

6. There are ongoing efforts to streamline administering competitions. Those will continue with an eye to making them easy for the volunteers and board members to not be overtaxed in making those events successful.

7. I will soon be asking some of you to volunteer for certain committees that have vacancies and that your personal skills are well suited for. It's a good time to especially start helping enforce the mandatory bylaw balance between northern and southern California. Please be willing to help if I tap you on the shoulder.

8. I've been appointed to the following Committees: Technology and Publications, Legislative Policy, and Legal. I refer to #7 above to explain why I wish to draft some folks to help get CRPA's online presence modernized. Also, NRA gave a peek at its bill package for this year. I can't comment yet, but I think everyone is going to be very excited once Ed Worley is ready to start showing his hand publicly. We certainly will not get everything we want just yet, but its a really nice place to finally be putting our issues on the table in Sacramento.

And finally, I have a question. Do any of you Service Rifle or High Power guys have a good idea of how or whether we need to try to get any rule changes to work around bullet buttons?

-Gene

SwissFluCase
02-16-2009, 7:32 PM
OK. I am renewed for one year. So should we all be. We cannot effect these changes if we don't join.

Gene, I for one do think that the CRPA can still be a valuable asset, though I think that their "one to many" model still hampers them. This must be rectified somehow. Social networking is the future of politics. Of course, I was paying closer attention to the CRPA in the 1990s, and things did not go well in the legislature as we all know. I stopped paying attention to them for the last several years, so I am not really knowledgeable about their current problems.

That said, I do want to see the pro 2A forces in this state work together. I don't see why the CRPA and Calguns should try duplicate each other's efforts. That would be extremely counter productive.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

artherd
02-16-2009, 8:43 PM
If any of you have seen Rain Man... baby steps to a better CRPA.

wildhawker
02-16-2009, 8:46 PM
OK. I am renewed for one year. So should we all be. We cannot effect That said, I do want to see the pro 2A forces in this state work together. I don't see why the CRPA and Calguns should try duplicate each other's efforts. That would be extremely counter productive.

I have a feeling that we'll see a synergistic approach to this effort; those in charge (at least here, and I believe in NRA and now in CRPA) are in tune with and aware of the strengths, weaknesses and capabilites of each organization. I doubt we see competing worldviews from here on out, and I'd venture to guess that the resources will be closely managed for efficiency and effective utilization. With these forthcoming changes at CRPA, we may be looking at the convergence of the most pointed and well-structured pro-2A offensive in history (at least recent history).

SwissFluCase
02-16-2009, 9:01 PM
I have a feeling that we'll see a synergistic approach to this effort; those in charge (at least here, and I believe in NRA and now in CRPA) are in tune with and aware of the strengths, weaknesses and capabilites of each organization. I doubt we see competing worldviews from here on out, and I'd venture to guess that the resources will be closely managed for efficiency and effective utilization. With these forthcoming changes at CRPA, we may be looking at the convergence of the most pointed and well-structured pro-2A offensive in history (at least recent history).

I guess I'm not so much worried about competing world views, but I do worry that there could be turf wars. We are all human, after all.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

DDT
02-16-2009, 9:25 PM
1. 6 Director slots can be petitioned for with the completing of a petition of 100 members of CRPA. Petitions forms will shortly be available from the ED. However, all a petition needs on it is the name of the candidate, and 100 names, addresses, CRPA numbers, dates, and signatures of CRPA members. The petition candidate need only be a member. However there is a statement in the bylaws that the officers must be Life Members so it behooves a successful petition candidate to become a Life Member before or after being elected.


Is 6 the total number of slots allocated to being filled via petition or is 6 just the number that are being elected this round?

There is a big difference between letting 15% of your directors be represented by the membership at large and permitting all the seats to be part of the open nomination process.

hoffmang
02-16-2009, 9:37 PM
There are two processes for becoming a board member of CRPA.

One process is the new petition system.

The other process is a modernized nominating committee that I expect to allow folks who are qualified for the committee they self nominate to, to then nominate for the next election.

-Gene

DDT
02-16-2009, 9:45 PM
There are two processes for becoming a board member of CRPA.

One process is the new petition system.

The other process is a modernized nominating committee that I expect to allow folks who are qualified for the committee they self nominate to, to then nominate for the next election.


I understand mostly. The question was are all 40 board seats available for people entering via the "new petition system" or are there only 6 seats total on the board that can be fill via this process?

hoffmang
02-16-2009, 10:04 PM
I understand mostly. The question was are all 40 board seats available for people entering via the "new petition system" or are there only 6 seats total on the board that can be fill via this process?

There are only 6 seats that can be filled by the petition process.

-Gene

lavgrunt
02-16-2009, 10:38 PM
Well, gents......I guess it's time for my 'come to Jesus' meeting. I owe the members of this forum an explanation and some info about who I 'really' am.......First off; I am not a 'propeller head'.....no offense.....so just bare with me:

I am the current Vice President of CRPA. I have been on the BOD for about 7 years and a CRPA member for about 15 years. I have been a member of 'calguns' for about 5 years. I have been an NRA member for about 20 years and a life member for about 6. I love this forum and it has been immensely helpful and entertaining in helping me to enjoy a sport and hobby that I cherish!! I really don't post much, except for the sales boards. I guess you could call me a 'lurker.' Plus, I just don't have the time in my personal and professional life to spend all that much time here!!

Several months ago, when the CRPA-bashing REALLLY got frenzied, I decided to make the choice to keep my true identity confidential in an effort to 'draw out' what some of the complaints were. I understand that many of you probably feel that this was dishonest. I agree it was nefarious. However, I always admitted that I was a CRPA member and no one ever asked if I was on the BOD or what my full involvement was. But I'm splitting hairs.........I admit some of my posts may have been a bit 'heated' and I know that I definitely got under some people's skin.....I apologize......but it served a purpose and no good Marine ever backs down from a good fight!! Let me ask you this?? After John Fields posted here to try and explain some of CRPA's positions, he got absolutely savaged and never came back!! I don't blame him. He is a good man and he only had good intentions. He got ran off with his tail between his legs for trying to do the right thing. Who can honestly say I would not have received the same treatment? I would have tried to the same outreach he did. After that experience, there was no way I was going to 'out myself' as an officer, only to be run out of town like John was!! Jerry Upholt was also railed on this board. The thing that bothered me about Jerry was that it got so personal. Was it really necessary to drag his personal life into the debate?? Who gives a damn who he's dating, deal with it behind the scenes, don't talk about it on a public forum. This ain't the damn 'National Enquirer!!!' So I continued to be the 'casual observer' and I read and monitored and did what I could behind the scenes to address some of the complaints all of you were posting about CRPA. 'CalGuns' had someone on 'the inside' at CRPA for quite a while and you didn't even know it!! I recommended and strongly supported Gene Hoffmann being appointed to the BOD. I supported a petition process be established and many other reforms that are to come. Much of the 'New CRPA' is happening because the trends and complaints that I saw on 'calguns' were valid. Sure, many other people were involved, but I got the education and information that I needed to support or not support certain reforms, based on what I saw here.

Let me make a few things perfectly clear, now that all my cards are out on the table: WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE!!! The CRPA is changing for the better, but Rome wasn't built in a day. I will ferociously defend the process that is in place and change will happen at OUR pace. I know that this is not good enough for some of you. The usual, "Well, I won't join unless this or that happens....." FINE.....Don't join until you're comfortable. I just can not understand this mind set....But whatever.......As I stated before, I don't have the time to constantly be on this board to answer questions etc. That's not why I'm here. As long as I am on this board, I am a 'CalGuns' member first and CRPA VP second.......Sorry. Rest assured that I have been a warrior in the RKBA fight in California for quite a while and I look forward to working with Gene, Bill et al.

So there it is.......I hope there are no hard feelings and I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone. Thanks for all your help in bringing about a better, stronger CRPA..........Now let's roll up our sleeves and take our damn rights back!!

ke6guj
02-16-2009, 10:46 PM
Jerry Upholt was also railed on this board. The thing that bothered me about Jerry was that it got so personal. Was it really necessary to drag his personal life into the debate?? Who gives a damn who he's dating, deal with it behind the scenes, don't talk about it on a public forum. This ain't the damn 'National Enquirer!!!'

Normally I would agree that his personal life should have been off limits, but IIRC, it was brought up that his significant other was also a lobbyist, and that there appeared to be times in which the pro-gun position had gotten traded away to benefit another group's lobbying efforts. If that was untrue, then so be it, but even the appearance of impropriety is wrong.


as for John Fields getting savaged and ran out of town. I think much of that was that he came in, posted a press release, and left. When members tried to get more info, he was nowhere to be found. And then he dropped in months later, posted another release complaining about everyone posting negative comments, which he never logged in to even attempt to comment on.

7x57
02-16-2009, 10:50 PM
Joel's a great guy and the idea he could be 'bought off' is ludicrous.


I think trying would be very bad for one's health. He doesn't give the impression of suffering fools gladly. :chris:

Still the rampant skepticism amounts to suspecting that. Well, I gather CRPA has earned some skepticism, fine, that is fair. But there is a point where it is silly. I don't know Joel or Gene well at all, but it is patently obvious to me that they are some of the last people you'd want on the board if you plan to deliver nothing more than whitewash. Now, CRPA must have plenty of board members that know them better than I do. So one of the following must be true:

(1) CRPA has an extremely stupid and foolish board, and shortly there will mushroom clouds sighted in the general direction of CRPA HQ.

(2) CRPA really, genuinely intends to fix itself, and is putting its money where its mouth is by who it puts on the board and who it asks for help.

So which is it, skeptics? Which is it?


(Besides, how DO you buy off a zillionaire food mogul?)

Secret sauce recipes? :D

I guess you'll have to ask the skeptics who believe the CRPA is somehow going to do nothing and get him to keep quiet about it. :eek:

7x57

DDT
02-16-2009, 11:54 PM
(1) CRPA has an extremely stupid and foolish board, and shortly there will mushroom clouds sighted in the general direction of CRPA HQ.

(2) CRPA really, genuinely intends to fix itself, and is putting its money where its mouth is by who it puts on the board and who it asks for help.


I do not know but I will say that you are offering up a false choice.

I believe that (3) is much more likely.

(3) CRPA knows that it is losing momentum and needs to get more support. In order to do that they need to find some people that are actually known and respected in the California Firearms civil rights movement. They also know they will need to change and will do as little as possible to put out the current fires and hope it all blows over with time.

DDT
02-16-2009, 11:57 PM
Well, gents......I guess it's time for my 'come to Jesus' meeting. I owe the members of this forum an explanation and some info about who I 'really' am.......First off; I am not a 'propeller head'.....no offense.....so just bare with me:

Thanks for posting. While I disagree with your characterization of some of the exact turn of events regarding past CRPA members and how they eventually ended up being "run off" I do appreciate that you have taken the time to engage with CalGuns on a less clandestine basis.

Can you post a list of the BoD and (if available) their bios?

7x57
02-17-2009, 12:05 AM
I do not know but I will say that you are offering up a false choice.

I believe that (3) is much more likely.

(3) CRPA knows that it is losing momentum and needs to get more support. In order to do that they need to find some people that are actually known and respected in the California Firearms civil rights movement. They also know they will need to change and will do as little as possible to put out the current fires and hope it all blows over with time.

Try reading again. The "do as little as possible" option while getting some type-A gun-rights diehards on the board who are determined to see CRPA change and are rather used to making stuff happen is exactly option (1). If the board were to think there was an option (3) that would be part of the foolishness that makes it option (1).

7x57

DDT
02-17-2009, 12:09 AM
Try reading again. The "do as little as possible" option while getting some type-A gun-rights diehards on the board who are determined to see CRPA change and are rather used to making stuff happen is exactly option (1). If the board were to think there was an option (3) that would be part of the foolishness that makes it option (1).


I disagree. Which is pretty rare with regards to your posts.

7x57
02-17-2009, 12:19 AM
I disagree. Which is pretty rare with regards to your posts.

Well, that's fair, as it rests on a subjective impression about certain personalities and just how they would react to mickey-mouse games. But before we just "agree to disagree" (a phrase I loathe), have you ever heard an annoyed Joel rant about dealing with the people building his new plant? I did, just 'cuz I was at the same meeting. So I have some idea of how he reacts to delay, obfustication, and smoke & mirrors in regards to getting his plant built. Is there any reason to think he feels differently about delay, obfustication, and smoke & mirrors in fixing a bad flaw in the California gun rights team? Especially when, as an NRA board member he happens to have easy access to the big sticks, and as a resident of California he, his Second Amendment rights, and his personal gun collection have a stake in the outcome?

I can't see it.

7x57

bwiese
02-17-2009, 12:28 AM
Jerry Upholt was also railed on this board. The thing that bothered me about Jerry was that it got so personal. Was it really necessary to drag his personal life into the debate?? Who gives a damn who he's dating, deal with it behind the scenes, don't talk about it on a public forum.

Tony,

Yes, it indeed was/is necessary. Gerry has been - at least for some of us - the 'prime issue'. All the other good work of CRPA from early 2000s thru last year was more than counterbalanced by his links.

Gerry is/has been dating/cohabiting with Kathy Lynch. Kathy, with Jerry, has been responsible for supporting an accumulation of antigun bills since SB15. There have been no cases where Jerry has stood independent of/in opposition to Kathy in relation to gun matters. Having Gerry Upholt being near the gunrights legislative fight is kinda like the DEA sharing office space with Pablo Escobar. And I am not being over-harsh.

Folks are counting on the new rerforms of "the new CRPA in Forward Progress Mode" to hold Jerry in check for the remainder of his short stint.

We can and will figure out other ways to apply pressure to Kathy Lynch/CAFR.

But in the meantime, Tony, it was great chatting with you. Look forward to working with you & John.

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 12:29 AM
OK. Now the $64K question, as I haven't seen the answer yet. Maybe I missed it?

Are those two lobbyists gone? I say two because it sure looks like a "buy one get one free" deal to me. They weren't helping, last time I checked. That is the first thing that needs to happen, IMHO. I feel that if the CRPA wants to regain lost goodwill, they should let Gerry take one for the team.

I'll feel a lot better once that is done and over with. We don't need them screwing things up again.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

bwiese
02-17-2009, 12:39 AM
OK. Now the $64K question, as I haven't seen the answer yet. Maybe I missed it?

Are those two lobbyists gone? I say two because it sure looks like a "buy one get one free" deal to me.

They weren't helping, last time I checked. That is the first thing that needs to happen, IMHO. I feel that if the CRPA wants to regain lost goodwill, they should let Gerry take one for the team.

Many people are now aware of the "Gerry problem".

He has announced his retirement. I think the issue may become more "keeping Gerry from causing problems" than how fast he goes.

The worse problem may be Kathy Lynch at CAFR. I suspect we're gonna have to work with NSSF to apply pressure. We'll also need to sit down with a bunch of of gun-friendly bail bondsmen who can readily be represented by others in Sacto.

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 12:45 AM
Many people are now aware of the "Gerry problem".

He has announced his retirement. I think the issue may become more "keeping Gerry from causing problems" than how fast he goes.

The worse problem may be Kathy Lynch at CAFR. I suspect we're gonna have to work with NSSF to apply pressure. We'll also need to sit down with a bunch of of gun-friendly bail bondsmen who can readily be represented by others in Sacto.

Would the CRPA not have grounds for legal recourse for conflict of interest issues? Surely there would be a conflict of interest clause in his contract, no? Could we push for such an action, or would it be cheaper to just pay out the contract and tell him to hand out flyers at the gun show instead, or wash Gene's car on a regular basis?

I looked up Kathy. What a mess. Is she still representing the hunting groups? Maybe we could sit down with them, too?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

H Paul Payne
02-17-2009, 1:29 AM
Well, gents......I guess it's time for my 'come to Jesus' meeting. I owe the members of this forum an explanation and some info about who I 'really' am.......First off; I am not a 'propeller head'.....no offense.....so just bare with me:

I am the current Vice President of CRPA. I have been on the BOD for about 7 years and a CRPA member for about 15 years. I have been a member of 'calguns' for about 5 years. I have been an NRA member for about 20 years and a life member for about 6. I love this forum and it has been immensely helpful and entertaining in helping me to enjoy a sport and hobby that I cherish!! I really don't post much, except for the sales boards. I guess you could call me a 'lurker.' Plus, I just don't have the time in my personal and professional life to spend all that much time here!!

Several months ago, when the CRPA-bashing REALLLY got frenzied, I decided to make the choice to keep my true identity confidential in an effort to 'draw out' what some of the complaints were. I understand that many of you probably feel that this was dishonest. I agree it was nefarious. However, I always admitted that I was a CRPA member and no one ever asked if I was on the BOD or what my full involvement was. But I'm splitting hairs.........I admit some of my posts may have been a bit 'heated' and I know that I definitely got under some people's skin.....I apologize......but it served a purpose and no good Marine ever backs down from a good fight!! Let me ask you this?? After John Fields posted here to try and explain some of CRPA's positions, he got absolutely savaged and never came back!! I don't blame him. He is a good man and he only had good intentions. He got ran off with his tail between his legs for trying to do the right thing. Who can honestly say I would not have received the same treatment? I would have tried to the same outreach he did. After that experience, there was no way I was going to 'out myself' as an officer, only to be run out of town like John was!! Jerry Upholt was also railed on this board. The thing that bothered me about Jerry was that it got so personal. Was it really necessary to drag his personal life into the debate?? Who gives a damn who he's dating, deal with it behind the scenes, don't talk about it on a public forum. This ain't the damn 'National Enquirer!!!' So I continued to be the 'casual observer' and I read and monitored and did what I could behind the scenes to address some of the complaints all of you were posting about CRPA. 'CalGuns' had someone on 'the inside' at CRPA for quite a while and you didn't even know it!! I recommended and strongly supported Gene Hoffmann being appointed to the BOD. I supported a petition process be established and many other reforms that are to come. Much of the 'New CRPA' is happening because the trends and complaints that I saw on 'calguns' were valid. Sure, many other people were involved, but I got the education and information that I needed to support or not support certain reforms, based on what I saw here.

Let me make a few things perfectly clear, now that all my cards are out on the table: WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE!!! The CRPA is changing for the better, but Rome wasn't built in a day. I will ferociously defend the process that is in place and change will happen at OUR pace. I know that this is not good enough for some of you. The usual, "Well, I won't join unless this or that happens....." FINE.....Don't join until you're comfortable. I just can not understand this mind set....But whatever.......As I stated before, I don't have the time to constantly be on this board to answer questions etc. That's not why I'm here. As long as I am on this board, I am a 'CalGuns' member first and CRPA VP second.......Sorry. Rest assured that I have been a warrior in the RKBA fight in California for quite a while and I look forward to working with Gene, Bill et al.

So there it is.......I hope there are no hard feelings and I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone. Thanks for all your help in bringing about a better, stronger CRPA..........Now let's roll up our sleeves and take our damn rights back!!

Alright folks, let's get down to what we have to work with HERE AND NOW! Although yesterday is important, so that we can learn from our (and other's) mistakes, today is here and tomorrow is more important.

Please listen to what I have to say about this matter before you make your final decision regarding Lavgrunt (aka Tony) and the CRPA. I am asking this as a favor and I don't ask many favors of you guys.

I remember when I first came to Calguns.net. It was not a very friendly place for a staff member of the NRA to be. But I was honest and quite candid with you and I took some pretty heavy incoming fire. And, although I refused to roll around in the mud, I continued to post my messages and give you my point of view. Some liked and appreciated it, some didn't. That's the way it went then and (to a certain level) that's the way it still goes.

But one thing I will say is once you guys got to really know me, you discovered that I will tell you everything I can tell you - and just the way I believe it to be. I feel I EARNED YOUR RESPECT. But you also earned my respect and you folks know it. So don't expect me to blow sunshine up-your-skirt 'cause that's just not my style.

Regarding CRPA: I have been wronged (both personally and professionally) by CRPA leadership IN THE PAST! I truly believe that if I continue to hold onto the old grudges OF THE PAST, I will be no better than those who wronged me. The main guy who was out to get me is gone and so are most of the problems.

Is CRPA fixed? Is it perfect? Is the evolution over? Do you expect me to answer YES to any of these questions? I hope you said NO.

Let me rephrase the questions:


Have everybody's issues with CRPA been resolved to make everyone happy?
Is it, or can it be perfect?
Does change in any organization ever stop?
You don't really expect me to lie to you, do you?

I think the answers to these "rephrased" questions are obvious!

My position regarding CRPA has gone through the following stages during the last few years:


Hopeful
Disappointed
Pissed-off
Really a lot more than pissed-off (aka madder than hell)
I don't really care any more, but I'll give 'em another chance
Even more pissed-off
Cautiously optimistic (this started after a leadership change)
Optimistic
Hopeful (real change appeared to be possible)
A witness (I've seen positive change with my own eyes)
Looking forward to tomorrow (working together is a lot better than crossing swords)

What do I have to gain by jumping into this thread? Aren't I risking some of my hard-earned credibility with the dedicated activists on Calguns.net?

I have nothing to gain...........except a chance at real progress in the pro-Second Amendment rights movement in California! And yes, I am risking my credibility on the possibility that I might be wrong. But I do believe I am right, and you know me well enough to know that I'm pretty sure of my beliefs.

Regarding Lavgrunt: I don't know Tony. I'm not sure if I've ever exchanged spoken words with the man. But I've watched him at CRPA Board Meetings. And I did read every one of his posts on this forum today (trying to get a better feel regarding where he's coming from). I'm usually pretty good at reading people (after all, I like you guys :p).

This is what I think I've learned:


He's a stubborn and passionate man when it comes to the Second Amendment. He's a true believer in the cause!
He's loyal to his organization and although he recognizes faults, he's determined to work through them to make it a better organization.
He gets very frustrated when others don't give him the chance to make things better - by pitching-in themselves. They seem to just sit-back and complain.
Being a former Marine, loyalty runs in his veins and means a lot to him.

Oh wait, am I describing Lavgrunt or myself??? Well, he's young and handsome and I'm a fat old man, so I doubt you'll get us confused. But I think some of our values are quite similar. And BTW, those are the same values that a lot of you have too.

So I guess we each can decide what to do about this situation. Do we continue to fight each other, thereby helping the enemies of freedom who would steal our Second Amendment freedoms? OR, do we cut the CRPA (and Lavgrunt) some slack and see if we can work together? Actually, it's YOUR choice, because (as you can obviously tell) I've made MY choice.

The great President Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." It worked for him. It can work for us.

For the record, I'm thankful that you guys accepted and trusted me. I hope I can continue to earn that honor.

Thanks for your time. I know this is a long post.

Paul

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 9:08 AM
Paul,

Thank you for for stepping in and saying that. I'm certainly willing to give the CRPA a chance, especially since Gene is vouching for them. Of course no one here can make a change over there without joining and becoming a voting member.

The lobbyist issue is still sticky. We have heard the Gerry is retiring, but so far I have not heard "he's gone" yet, and I don't think anyone else has either.

We need to stop the bleeding.

Secondly, we need to clean up the mess that those two lobbyists did. As bwiese stated, we may have to sit down with some like minded groups and become clear on what our goals are. I see a split between CAFR and CRPA to be just as damaging as the split between Calguns and CRPA, if not more so.

The passing of the bylaws was a good first step, but in order to regain the confidence of the naysayers, Gerry has to go. Not later... NOW! I don't see any room for exception to this. There is no room for cutting slack on this issue. This is where we, as members of the CRPA, and the NRA, and Calguns, will have to apply pressure, no matter if feelings and egos get hurt. The budget crisis will be over sooner than later I suspect, and we had better get our ducks in a row.

Again, I am willing to work the the CRPA, but we do have *work* to do. I'm not sure what I can do personally in this mess at this time other than rejoining. I will do what is necessary when called upon, or the opportunity presents itself. I *want* the CRPA to work!

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Kestryll
02-17-2009, 9:37 AM
Well, gents......I guess it's time for my 'come to Jesus' meeting. I owe the members of this forum an explanation and some info about who I 'really' am......
.....
So there it is.......I hope there are no hard feelings and I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone. Thanks for all your help in bringing about a better, stronger CRPA..........Now let's roll up our sleeves and take our damn rights back!!

Tony, I want to address a few things here.
I'm not going to candy coat some things but bear with me.

Trust, and credibility are things that are hard won, easily lost and even harder to regain. This is a double edged sword given where we're at now.

On the one hand you've been here a very long time and in several cases been quite vocal from behind the cloak of anonymity. Coming out now with the big reveal, only after having been effectively pulled from the shadows by Gene, can easily be seen as raising questions of both intent and credibility.
Some are going to feel that you are only 'revealing' yourself because you had no other choice and that impression will color their opinion of you and of what you represent.
Fair? Likely not.
Unexpected? Also likely not.

On the other hand you are opening up and that says a bit too.
No one here would say you are not a smart man which means you very likely had to realize all of the above prior to deciding what to do at this juncture.
You could easily have spared yourself the questions and hassles by simply fading away and letting someone else be the CRPA presence here. This would have spared you much of the problems and stress involved in re-winning trust and credibility and been what many others probably would have done.
That you choose the course you did says a lot, both about your commitment to gun rights, CRPA and Calguns. Paul Payne earned a lot of respect here by being willing to stand his ground in the face of slings and arrows as we grew to know him. We still poke and prod him at times or get impatient and want to know/move forward NOW but we can take him at face value when he says 'bide a moment, we've got something cooking'.

Choosing to stay, putting yourself out there and saying 'this is who I am, sorry if I mislead, let's go forward from here in the full light' is a huge step towards that respect and rebuilding.

Some are still going to be a bit skeptical but they'll either come around or not.
Right now let's put our energies not on looking back at the obstacles we've overcome but towards seeing what we have to overcome now and working together to get it done.



The great President Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." It worked for him. It can work for us.
An excellent place to start Paul.

xxdabroxx
02-17-2009, 11:38 AM
i'm pretty sure i marked that i would be willing to join on the petition so i stand by that, now a CRPA member. I'll give 'em a shot.

ke6guj
02-17-2009, 11:47 AM
i'm pretty sure i marked that i would be willing to join on the petition so i stand by that, now a CRPA member. I'll give 'em a shot.+1. They've got a 1-year trial membership. Come renewal time, I'll decide if they deserve a renewal.

DDT
02-17-2009, 12:26 PM
Well, that's fair, as it rests on a subjective impression about certain personalities and just how they would react to mickey-mouse games. But before we just "agree to disagree" (a phrase I loathe), have you ever heard an annoyed Joel rant about dealing with the people building his new plant? I did, just 'cuz I was at the same meeting. So I have some idea of how he reacts to delay, obfustication, and smoke & mirrors in regards to getting his plant built. Is there any reason to think he feels differently about delay, obfustication, and smoke & mirrors in fixing a bad flaw in the California gun rights team? Especially when, as an NRA board member he happens to have easy access to the big sticks, and as a resident of California he, his Second Amendment rights, and his personal gun collection have a stake in the outcome?




I don't know Joel or Gene personally (yet) so I can't comment.

I also don't think that one must be "extremely stupid and foolish" to try and find a tolerable position by giving up as little as required to satisfy those with whom you have a disagreement.

Take the "petition process" for board nominations. I think everyone would be much happier with an entirely open process. But instead they have offered up (and Gene accepted) a process in which 15% of their seats MAY change hands in a petition process and the other 85% will continue in the standard way. If we assume (and it is a raw assumption, may well be wrong) that Gene and Joel's (and perhaps Matt's) seats are 2 (or 3) of the seats that are part of the petition process then that leaves 10% of the board positions at best that would be chosen by a process outside of the status quo.

Is this an improvement? Yes. Is it doing the minimum needed to get buy in from a previous dissenter? I would argue yes. Is this "extremely stupid and foolish?" I would argue no.

I agree that most of the time "gee, let's just agree to disagree" is shorthand for "you're too stupid or intransigent to listen to reason." I do know that is not how you meant it.

lavgrunt
02-17-2009, 12:38 PM
Kes,

I greatly appreciate your understanding and willingness to keep an open mind and give me the benefit of the doubt. All your points are well taken and I knew that I was taking a big risk in terms of putting my reputation and credibility on the line. I am committed to proving myself to this group and removing any doubt.

In reference to my outting, let me put any concerns to rest. The recent CRPA BOD meeting was historic. I knew that Gene was going to be there. I was surprised to see Bill, but I'm glad he made it! Timing is everything and I already had decided to reveal myself at the conclusion of this meeting, after I had a chance to personally talk to Gene and Bill. Gene's post congratulating me on my promotion was clearly a way to bait me into replying and confirming or disqualifying his suspicions. He and I were sitting about 10 feet from each other during the meetings and it was pretty obvious that whoever LAVGRUNT was, he was at the meeting too!! I took the bait and outed myself. I could have simply denied it and played stupid (I'm very good at that.....!!!), but why?? I was going to come out after the meetings anyway and this was our last day. Let me say that it was a pleasure to finally meet Gene and Bill and I look forward to good things happening in the future because of our getting to know each other.........I hope this puts some things in perspective.......I'm sure Gene and Bill will chime in shortly.........Thanks for your consideration.

lavgrunt
02-17-2009, 12:44 PM
Alright folks, let's get down to what we have to work with HERE AND NOW! Although yesterday is important, so that we can learn from our (and other's) mistakes, today is here and tomorrow is more important.

Please listen to what I have to say about this matter before you make your final decision regarding Lavgrunt (aka Tony) and the CRPA. I am asking this as a favor and I don't ask many favors of you guys.

I remember when I first came to Calguns.net. It was not a very friendly place for a staff member of the NRA to be. But I was honest and quite candid with you and I took some pretty heavy incoming fire. And, although I refused to roll around in the mud, I continued to post my messages and give you my point of view. Some liked and appreciated it, some didn't. That's the way it went then and (to a certain level) that's the way it still goes.

But one thing I will say is once you guys got to really know me, you discovered that I will tell you everything I can tell you - and just the way I believe it to be. I feel I EARNED YOUR RESPECT. But you also earned my respect and you folks know it. So don't expect me to blow sunshine up-your-skirt 'cause that's just not my style.

Regarding CRPA: I have been wronged (both personally and professionally) by CRPA leadership IN THE PAST! I truly believe that if I continue to hold onto the old grudges OF THE PAST, I will be no better than those who wronged me. The main guy who was out to get me is gone and so are most of the problems.

Is CRPA fixed? Is it perfect? Is the evolution over? Do you expect me to answer YES to any of these questions? I hope you said NO.

Let me rephrase the questions:


Have everybody's issues with CRPA been resolved to make everyone happy?
Is it, or can it be perfect?
Does change in any organization ever stop?
You don't really expect me to lie to you, do you?

I think the answers to these "rephrased" questions are obvious!

My position regarding CRPA has gone through the following stages during the last few years:


Hopeful
Disappointed
Pissed-off
Really a lot more than pissed-off (aka madder than hell)
I don't really care any more, but I'll give 'em another chance
Even more pissed-off
Cautiously optimistic (this started after a leadership change)
Optimistic
Hopeful (real change appeared to be possible)
A witness (I've seen positive change with my own eyes)
Looking forward to tomorrow (working together is a lot better than crossing swords)

What do I have to gain by jumping into this thread? Aren't I risking some of my hard-earned credibility with the dedicated activists on Calguns.net?

I have nothing to gain...........except a chance at real progress in the pro-Second Amendment rights movement in California! And yes, I am risking my credibility on the possibility that I might be wrong. But I do believe I am right, and you know me well enough to know that I'm pretty sure of my beliefs.

Regarding Lavgrunt: I don't know Tony. I'm not sure if I've ever exchanged spoken words with the man. But I've watched him at CRPA Board Meetings. And I did read every one of his posts on this forum today (trying to get a better feel regarding where he's coming from). I'm usually pretty good at reading people (after all, I like you guys :p).

This is what I think I've learned:


He's a stubborn and passionate man when it comes to the Second Amendment. He's a true believer in the cause!
He's loyal to his organization and although he recognizes faults, he's determined to work through them to make it a better organization.
He gets very frustrated when others don't give him the chance to make things better - by pitching-in themselves. They seem to just sit-back and complain.
Being a former Marine, loyalty runs in his veins and means a lot to him.

Oh wait, am I describing Lavgrunt or myself??? Well, he's young and handsome and I'm a fat old man, so I doubt you'll get us confused. But I think some of our values are quite similar. And BTW, those are the same values that a lot of you have too.

So I guess we each can decide what to do about this situation. Do we continue to fight each other, thereby helping the enemies of freedom who would steal our Second Amendment freedoms? OR, do we cut the CRPA (and Lavgrunt) some slack and see if we can work together? Actually, it's YOUR choice, because (as you can obviously tell) I've made MY choice.

The great President Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." It worked for him. It can work for us.

For the record, I'm thankful that you guys accepted and trusted me. I hope I can continue to earn that honor.

Thanks for your time. I know this is a long post.

Paul

Thanks, Paul !!!

You missed your calling....You should have been a 'shrink!!'

Talk to you soon........

lavgrunt
02-17-2009, 12:48 PM
Thanks for posting. While I disagree with your characterization of some of the exact turn of events regarding past CRPA members and how they eventually ended up being "run off" I do appreciate that you have taken the time to engage with CalGuns on a less clandestine basis.

Can you post a list of the BoD and (if available) their bios?


Please understand that it is inappropriate to list that information on a site other than the CRPA official site and without their permission: Rest assured that your point is well taken and the information you seek will be on the official CRPA site as soon as possible.........I thank you for your consideration......

lavgrunt
02-17-2009, 12:52 PM
Tony,

Yes, it indeed was/is necessary. Gerry has been - at least for some of us - the 'prime issue'. All the other good work of CRPA from early 2000s thru last year was more than counterbalanced by his links.

Gerry is/has been dating/cohabiting with Kathy Lynch. Kathy, with Jerry, has been responsible for supporting an accumulation of antigun bills since SB15. There have been no cases where Jerry has stood independent of/in opposition to Kathy in relation to gun matters. Having Gerry Upholt being near the gunrights legislative fight is kinda like the DEA sharing office space with Pablo Escobar. And I am not being over-harsh.

Folks are counting on the new rerforms of "the new CRPA in Forward Progress Mode" to hold Jerry in check for the remainder of his short stint.

We can and will figure out other ways to apply pressure to Kathy Lynch/CAFR.

But in the meantime, Tony, it was great chatting with you. Look forward to working with you & John.

Bill,

You and I will disagree on this point in terms of the manner, not the substance.......Regardless, you know where I stand and we agree on far more issues than we disagree.....and that is a very good thing !!

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 1:31 PM
I think everyone would be much happier with an entirely open process. But instead they have offered up (and Gene accepted) a process in which 15% of their seats MAY change hands in a petition process and the other 85% will continue in the standard way. If we assume (and it is a raw assumption, may well be wrong) that Gene and Joel's (and perhaps Matt's) seats are 2 (or 3) of the seats that are part of the petition process then that leaves 10% of the board positions at best that would be chosen by a process outside of the status quo.


DDT,

0 of 6 petition candidate seats are occupied.

-Gene

HowardW56
02-17-2009, 1:33 PM
OK, I joined.....

Now stop rehashing the past and lets see some progress!!

Matt C
02-17-2009, 1:37 PM
DDT,

0 of 6 petition candidate seats are occupied.

-Gene

Additionally, if someone is interested in serving, and has a genuine qualification for one of the board positions, I would suggest applying though the traditional nominating process. I would be surprised if your application was not treated favorably. The petition process may be wholly unnecessary, but it at least insures that the current officers cannot prevent someone from being elected to the board for political reasons (although that may not be and is probably not even an issue).

DDT
02-17-2009, 3:14 PM
Please understand that it is inappropriate to list that information on a site other than the CRPA official site and without their permission: Rest assured that your point is well taken and the information you seek will be on the official CRPA site as soon as possible.........I thank you for your consideration......

I don't understand why it is inappropriate to disclose the leadership of a non-profit organization on a third-party site. Certainly, it is the prerogative of the CRPA to not disclose any information aside from that required by law but there is no reason that I can see that the information would be inappropriate on CGN but appropriate on CRPA. Without their permission I can understand but it is rather deceitful to ask to be a leader of a group of people but not want your identity known to those same people you wish to lead.

DDT
02-17-2009, 3:15 PM
DDT,

0 of 6 petition candidate seats are occupied.

-Gene

So, are they growing the board from 40 to 46 seats?

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 3:46 PM
Please understand that it is inappropriate to list that information on a site other than the CRPA official site and without their permission: Rest assured that your point is well taken and the information you seek will be on the official CRPA site as soon as possible.........I thank you for your consideration......

This is public information. The discussion of the makeup of a non profit board is certainly open for discussion.

This is not looking good so far. I am now a member. I want to know who is on the board. I also want to see the bylaws.

I will be contacting the CRPA in the morning for this information.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

DDT
02-17-2009, 3:56 PM
This is public information. The discussion of the makeup of a non profit board is certainly open for discussion.

This is not looking good so far. I am now a member. I want to know who is on the board. I also want to see the bylaws.

I will be contacting the CRPA in the morning for this information.


I believe that Gene has said in an earlier posting that the bylaws will be available via email shortly. I look forward to seeing them as well.

MindBuilder
02-17-2009, 4:11 PM
Lavgrunt, why won't the CRPA board vote to give control of the CRPA to the members at the next board meeting, or at the earliest reasonable time? I'm interested in your speculation on this matter but I'd especially like to know what the board members are saying.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-17-2009, 4:37 PM
http://www.crpa.org/showpages.asp?pid=1005
Who is the Manager of Governmental Affairs ?

Who is the Counsel for Litigation and Local Affairs ?

CRPA maximizes the effectiveness of it's 70,000 member voice.
At $22 for the year thats about $1,540,000 for the year.

Calguns had about 8,000 now over 23,000 registered members and no fees, dues or letters requesting funds and I think we shook up the legislative chambers pretty good.

Which board seats are paid positions?

Is there someone that decides the day to day operations of CRPA or is it all done via voice vote, ballot or general agreement by the board?

Who is that man behind the curtain?

Vick

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 4:39 PM
So, are they growing the board from 40 to 46 seats?

Though there are about 40 members currently, there are actually more un-filled seats than that. This adds to the total number of unfilled seats.

-Gene

Kestryll
02-17-2009, 4:51 PM
This is public information. The discussion of the makeup of a non profit board is certainly open for discussion.

This is not looking good so far. I am now a member. I want to know who is on the board. I also want to see the bylaws.

I will be contacting the CRPA in the morning for this information.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

It is public info but I don't think that's the issue.

The impression I got was that this is info, such as bios and more, that belongs on their web site not on a third party site.

I can understand and agree with that. Once it's posted there if they have no qualms about it I'm sure someone will copy it in to a post here or if CRPA decides to take us up on a CRPA forum they might post it there too.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-17-2009, 4:54 PM
Additionally, if someone is interested in serving, and has a genuine qualification for one of the board positions, I would suggest applying though the traditional nominating process. I would be surprised if your application was not treated favorably. The petition process may be wholly unnecessary, but it at least insures that the current officers cannot prevent someone from being elected to the board for political reasons (although that may not be and is probably not even an issue).

What are the genuine qualifications for a board position? I've looked on the CRPA site and I am unable to locate.

What is the traditional nominating process? I'm unable to locate it also.

Maybe thats part of the test? To see if we can find them?

Vick

lavgrunt
02-17-2009, 5:03 PM
Please, by all means....any CRPA member is entitled to know who is on the BOD and to review the bylaws and articles of incorporation....It's the law!! Please feel free to contact the office and request the information. There is nothing mysterious about any of this.........My point was, that I was being asked to independently of the office, post the info that was requested on a third party site when any member can request the info on his own and cut out the middleman.....ie: ME !!! I never refused to give any information......But there are issues of procedure, decorum and a 'chain of command' if you will........I hope this makes it clearer.........

Matt C
02-17-2009, 5:10 PM
What are the genuine qualifications for a board position? I've looked on the CRPA site and I am unable to locate.

What is the traditional nominating process? I'm unable to locate it also.

Maybe thats part of the test? To see if we can find them?

Vick

When the bylaws are posted it should all be pretty clear. Give them a break, this stuff was only approved last weekend.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-17-2009, 5:15 PM
When the bylaws are posted it should all be pretty clear. Give them a break, this stuff was only approved last weekend.

Okay, I misunderstood the previous statement.

Vick

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 5:21 PM
It is public info but I don't think that's the issue.

The impression I got was that this is info, such as bios and more, that belongs on their web site not on a third party site.

I can understand and agree with that. Once it's posted there if they have no qualms about it I'm sure someone will copy it in to a post here or if CRPA decides to take us up on a CRPA forum they might post it there too.

I support info like bios only appearing on the CRPA site. A bio is dangerously close to ad copy, which would not be public info per se, but rather CRPA's public voice. We have no business speaking for the CRPA. Same thing with the bylaws. That info should be maintained on their site, and some sort of version control should be in place.

I do want to see a list of the board members, and my personal feeling is that list of names should be discussed. Who is involved? Are they 100% committed? Do they have a clear vision for the CRPA? Are there any conflict of interest issues? Are there some board members that need to be shown the door? Are there board members that we need to support? Could any of them be subject to undue influence? This is what I could consider public info, or at least fair game for discussion here at Calguns.

I think we have a responsibility to vet each the key players here. This in itself could be a messy process, but the upside is there. Doing so will make the RKBA movement in CA stronger.

I'm very willing to take a wait and see attitude. I certainly don't want to do anything the right people would consider counter-productive. I don't want to see confidential or compromising information in this war posted here either.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 5:25 PM
Please, by all means....any CRPA member is entitled to know who is on the BOD and to review the bylaws and articles of incorporation....It's the law!! Please feel free to contact the office and request the information. There is nothing mysterious about any of this.........My point was, that I was being asked to independently of the office, post the info that was requested on a third party site when any member can request the info on his own and cut out the middleman.....ie: ME !!! I never refused to give any information......But there are issues of procedure, decorum and a 'chain of command' if you will........I hope this makes it clearer.........

I understand. Decorum states that the info should come from the CRPA secretary, or a delegate. I will ask for the info in the morning. If I get it first I will review it, and if the right people do not object, I'll post it. I would hope that any other member here would do the same.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

artherd
02-17-2009, 5:30 PM
Please understand that it is inappropriate to list that information on a site other than the CRPA official site and without their permission: Rest assured that your point is well taken and the information you seek will be on the official CRPA site as soon as possible.........I thank you for your consideration......

As an officer & director I'm sure you do know it's all public record anyway...

That said, the appropriate channel is to get this through CRPA itself.

For instance: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/board

lavgrunt
02-17-2009, 7:01 PM
See my last post on the prior page........Thanks.....

jmlivingston
02-17-2009, 7:11 PM
See my last post on the prior page........Thanks.....

Why don't you specify the post number? It's at the top right of each post. Referencing a page doesn't do much good as the number of posts per page may be individually set by each user (and they frequently are).

John

big50_1
02-19-2009, 11:05 AM
This thread and its attendant confusion is part and parcel of why I have no respect for CRPA. Was a member years ago but having lived in this state for 38 years, I honestly don't know what the heck they have been doing. I buy and sell several guns per year so I am around guns and gun people and in conversation with range members, store owners and other shooters, the CRPA name NEVER comes up (by the way, NRA does).

CA is one of the worst, if not the worst, gun control state in the union, that organization should hang its head(s) in shame. But as I am finding out more and more lately, as for example, the Sacramento budget process, those in power fight hard to remain in power while providing virtually nothing to their constituents.

jnojr
02-20-2009, 9:41 PM
I was with Gene today at the CRPA board meeting, and am pleased to see this good Forward Progress.

I think the new CRPA (leadership/board and membership) 'gets it' and there's genuine interest in focus, coalition building and now have understanding that New Folks Are Not Evil. With the changes Gene nicely summarized above, there's a genuine ability to bring in folks that may have shied away before due perception of lack of openness/welcome.

I am now a CRPA member. (Thanks for the efforts and the warm welcome, John. Let's go get those 100K new members and shake up Sacramento.)

Holy crap.

I think I just saw a pig fly by.

oaklander
02-20-2009, 9:49 PM
Just joined! Looking forward to good things!

Thank you for your order! [Print]

Your order number is 1235XXXXXX. Please keep this number handy until you receive your order. You may also want to print this page for future reference.

You will receive an email order confirmation from us shortly. It will include your order number above and the details of your order. Your order will be processed as soon as your payment method is approved and all order information, including the item price, is verified for accuracy.

You can check the status of your order anytime. Just click "My Account" at the top of our home page. Then log in with your email address and password.

oaklander
02-20-2009, 10:01 PM
I think with the reforms that are taking place at the CRPA, we can join with confidence at this point.

I see the CRPA working in conjunction (now) with CGN, CGF, the NRA, and The Right People.

I am looking forward to becoming a member, and at some point, getting even more involved with the CRPA.

As demonstrated by Gene and Bill (and others), "change" for the better can take place.

Between the NRA, T*M, the CGF - we've accomplished a lot in just a very short time here in California. I for one, welcome the participation of another pro-gun group in this process.

This thread and its attendant confusion is part and parcel of why I have no respect for CRPA. Was a member years ago but having lived in this state for 38 years, I honestly don't know what the heck they have been doing. I buy and sell several guns per year so I am around guns and gun people and in conversation with range members, store owners and other shooters, the CRPA name NEVER comes up (by the way, NRA does).

CA is one of the worst, if not the worst, gun control state in the union, that organization should hang its head(s) in shame. But as I am finding out more and more lately, as for example, the Sacramento budget process, those in power fight hard to remain in power while providing virtually nothing to their constituents.

jnojr
02-20-2009, 10:07 PM
I just rejoined for a year. I'm willing to take this thread at face value and see what a year will bring.

I cannot stress strongly enough, though, that "business as usual" needs to be over. If the CRPA is "new and fresh", a top priority needs to be transparency. There is zero reason why the website cannot have a list of the Board of Directors, their bios, the bylaws, and a clear description of how the Board is selected.

It's on the CRPA to show California gun owners that they've changed with action. No "It's going to take time to do this..." The top priority has to be a clear demonstration that the old way is dead and here's how we're doing things now. No obfuscation.

ke6guj
02-20-2009, 10:12 PM
exactly. The CRPA is on a one-year probationary period for me, and their actions will be evaluated when it comes time for renewal.

Zebra
02-20-2009, 11:11 PM
exactly. The CRPA is on a one-year probationary period for me, and their actions will be evaluated when it comes time for renewal.

Word!

rweller
02-21-2009, 7:11 AM
Questions on WHO is on the board: The CRPA Board isn't in hiding. There have never been requests by anyone that I'm aware of asking for a list of who they are, or what they look like. However, I understand an effort will be underway shortly to provide some background information and pics of board members on the CRPA website. It's a rather motley looking crew if you ask my opinion, and I lead the group in motliness. I think most of you will find board members aren't much different than you. Most are just very committed to the organization and Second Amendment rights.

As for the website condition: It is rather static and recognized by the committee responsible for the site that the site needs to be more relevant. It really is one big advertisement for how great we are as an organization, which frankly is boring. We know who we are and so do our members, we don't need to bore ourselves to death preaching to the choir. We agreed in committee at the last board meeting that we would make the information more dynamic with relevant news not only from California, but sister organizations nationwide as well as federal legislation. We also need more relevant and timely commentary/blogging efforts. Our intent to provide daily news and commentary.

The process to make the CRPA website more appealing has started this week. We should see some results online within 1 week or so along with more refinements over the coming months.

As for requiring a thick hides to have a CRPA forum... are you kidding me or what? We're in the business of promoting gun rights. If you don't have enough thick skin for that, a forum isn't going to bother anyone. And, if it does, find another civil right to promote PUBLICLY, because this isn't your cup of tea.

I think momentum is building in the pro-gun rights community (NRA/CRPA) to get in the face of politicians, be far more aggressive in demanding our rights as opposed to defending what few we have left. I welcome it with open arms. But, an area that I have a personal interest is gun owner voter registration. It is an unfortunate fact that most gun owners in the larger city areas do not vote. Call it paranoia, laziness, I don't know what it is. But a lot of gun owners are apathetic about voting, which really hurts us in California districts that are marginal or flip/flop between Dems and Repubs. It's one thing to be active in the gun rights community, it's a whole other matter to be active in the voting process. We can scream, yell, phone and send emails until we are blue in the face. If we aren't willing to vote, we aren't doing anyone any favors. I urge all Calguns members to vote. With 23,000 members, it's a sizeable chunk considering how close some elections seem to be as of late. To those of you who do vote, thank you. We need more of you, so vote early and often.

I met Gene this past weekend at the board meeting. You've got a good man on the foundation and associated with Calguns. He's a great addition to the CRPA board.

Ralph Weller
CRPA Board Member
Editor: GunNewsDaily.com

jmlivingston
02-21-2009, 7:34 AM
The process to make the CRPA website more appealing has started this week. We should see some results online within 1 week or so along with more refinements over the coming months.

That would be excellent! I went to the website this morning to join as I'd previously committed to do, but the Family Membership sign-up option wasn't available online. Will that be coming real soon or should I do it the old fashioned way and mail a check in?


I met Gene this past weekend at the board meeting. You've got a good man on the foundation and associated with Calguns. He's a great addition to the CRPA board.


Obviously we've been with him and some of the other CalGuns Foundation members for some time now. The CRPA is incredibly fortunate to have him as a member and a board director.


Ralph Weller
CRPA Board Member
Editor: GunNewsDaily.com

Thank you Ralph for coming to CalGuns and sharing with us. The coalition between the CRPA and the Calguns.net membership will probably be a little rocky at first, but I suspect that things will improve dramatically over a very short period of time. I for one look forward to joining the CRPA, and know as we work together that bigger and better things will come from it.

John

6172crew
02-21-2009, 7:47 AM
Questions on WHO is on the board: The CRPA Board isn't in hiding. There have never been requests by anyone that I'm aware of asking for a list of who they are, or what they look like. However, I understand an effort will be underway shortly to provide some background information and pics of board members on the CRPA website. It's a rather motley looking crew if you ask my opinion, and I lead the group in motliness. I think most of you will find board members aren't much different than you. Most are just very committed to the organization and Second Amendment rights.

As for the website condition: It is rather static and recognized by the committee responsible for the site that the site needs to be more relevant. It really is one big advertisement for how great we are as an organization, which frankly is boring. We know who we are and so do our members, we don't need to bore ourselves to death preaching to the choir. We agreed in committee at the last board meeting that we would make the information more dynamic with relevant news not only from California, but sister organizations nationwide as well as federal legislation. We also need more relevant and timely commentary/blogging efforts. Our intent to provide daily news and commentary.

The process to make the CRPA website more appealing has started this week. We should see some results online within 1 week or so along with more refinements over the coming months.

As for requiring a thick hides to have a CRPA forum... are you kidding me or what? We're in the business of promoting gun rights. If you don't have enough thick skin for that, a forum isn't going to bother anyone. And, if it does, find another civil right to promote PUBLICLY, because this isn't your cup of tea.

I think momentum is building in the pro-gun rights community (NRA/CRPA) to get in the face of politicians, be far more aggressive in demanding our rights as opposed to defending what few we have left. I welcome it with open arms. But, an area that I have a personal interest is gun owner voter registration. It is an unfortunate fact that most gun owners in the larger city areas do not vote. Call it paranoia, laziness, I don't know what it is. But a lot of gun owners are apathetic about voting, which really hurts us in California districts that are marginal or flip/flop between Dems and Repubs. It's one thing to be active in the gun rights community, it's a whole other matter to be active in the voting process. We can scream, yell, phone and send emails until we are blue in the face. If we aren't willing to vote, we aren't doing anyone any favors. I urge all Calguns members to vote. With 23,000 members, it's a sizeable chunk considering how close some elections seem to be as of late. To those of you who do vote, thank you. We need more of you, so vote early and often.

I met Gene this past weekend at the board meeting. You've got a good man on the foundation and associated with Calguns. He's a great addition to the CRPA board.

Ralph Weller
CRPA Board Member
Editor: GunNewsDaily.com

Welcome aboard Ralph:chris:

rweller
02-21-2009, 8:35 AM
I remember something coming up in past board meetings about family membership. I don't know if we blasted it out or added it to be honest with you. I need to check. But, if it's in the Firing Line magazine I have to assume it's valid, so mail a check in. We'll try and get it online soon.

We're having some difficulty with updating the CRPA site from remote locations other than being in the CRPA office. I found that out last night when I tried to access it to make some mods in support of updating it. I'll find out Monday what's going on with security. I suspect access is limited to a range of IP addresses. The intent is when we find problems like no Family Membership online, we can fix it relatively quickly as opposed to contacting the office during weekdays and wedging it in when time is available.

We have a number of board members that have the skills to update the site with timely information, so we intend to take advantage of it.

Thank you for the warm welcome. I don't think it will be a rocky relationship at all. We all have a common interest and it's human nature to have opposing opinions. Some people hate the NRA, others the CRPA, Gun Owners, SAF, I've seen it all. Some hate all organizations including Calguns. That's life. Vocal discourse is welcome to ferret out where we need to go and how we should go about it. It's the American way. Dumb ideas and complaints lead to new ideas and direction. So no idea is dumb, no opposing opinion is whining. It's just a different perspective.

I'm just so happy that CRPA is moving in an alternate direction and reaching out to other pro-gun groups. I personally thank our new Exec Dir John Fields. He brings a leadership to the board that is energetic. We need to coalesce (spelling/meaning?) as gun owners, which is why I'm so upbeat these days about CRPA direction. We all want the same thing. I know what I want and it's real simple. I want my gun rights back from the knuckleheads in Sacramento who have stolen them from me. I don't want some of them, I want them all. I don't want to work around laws and regulations to see what I can get away with. I want my rights back. I'm law-abiding, I vote, I pay my taxes, and as a result, I don't like be treated like I'm on probation or parole. I'm not the problem and neither are you folks in this forum.

I believe the Heller case has opened up a whole new level to test gun laws in California. The Nordyke case being litigated by Chuck Michel (CRPA/NRA Civil Rights Attorney) for 10 years now has new life as a result of Heller. It may be the case that incorporates Second Amendment rights to the states. We'll see. If it does, or some other case does, it will be real interesting to see what happens after incorporation based on how the court rules. Heller may be the first 500lb bomb that starts weakening the dam, or it may go down in history as a footnote. I hope it's the prior, not the latter.

Enough ranting. Again, thank you for your warm welcome. For those of you who hate CRPA, fire away. I'd love to engage your ideas and thoughts, and who knows, you might change my mind on various positions. But, one thing I won't do is fill you with a line of crap. If I can't say something because you want to know the CRPA's financial position, or something that is discussed in closed session of board meetings because it isn't finished up for public discussion, I'll tell you that. But, I won't lie to anyone, nor will I make things up to get you off my butt.

Ralph Weller
CRPA Board Member
Editor: Gun News Daily

jnojr
02-21-2009, 8:58 AM
Thank you for the warm welcome. I don't think it will be a rocky relationship at all. We all have a common interest and it's human nature to have opposing opinions. Some people hate the NRA, others the CRPA, Gun Owners, SAF, I've seen it all. Some hate all organizations including Calguns. That's life.

The best way to avoid that is to keep the CRPA focused on defending and advancing the Second Amendment.

We already have too many "gun rights" people to whom the 2A is incidental to some pet cause of theirs. When it becomes clear that a "gun rights" group is really a "something-else rights" group, you wind up with a problem.

We can all agree on fighting gun bans or supporting legislation that advances our freedom. But the moment that someone decides to spend time, money, and effort on something that they feel is tangential to those things, that's where you start to break apart. Once one pet cause is supported, everyone else wonders, "How are they going to feel about my pet cause?"

This is directly referring to the NRA weighing in on laws about tethering or spaying/neutering dogs. They had zero business spending one second of the time gun owners pay for on those issues, on either side. I don't really care if a lot of NRA members are hunters and they seem to feel that their "hunting rights" include the God-given right to tie their dog to an engine block in their yard. Join a group that's specifically for hunting to advance that cause. I don't care if a lot of NRA members simply feel that the state has zero business regulating what someone does with their dog. Join a group that's more generally concerned with "less government" to advance that cause. But even acknowledging such issues creates divisiveness.

If it isn't directly relevant to shooting or firearms legislation, the CRPA shouldn't even acknowledge the issue. Lead ammo ban? Directly related. Ban on vehicles in a condor area? Not directly related, even though, sure, some members might care or be affected. But if those members get to use the CRPA as their voice then, others are going to say, "This isn't what I pay dues for."

Focus. There is one issue that all of us can agree on, and that one issue is what we send money to support.

rweller
02-21-2009, 9:52 AM
I can't disagree with your position on taking up other issues such as the dog issue, and a mere few years ago I would have agreed with you. But, having been in board meetings when the subjects mentioned come up, such as spaying, neutering and dog restraining, the arguments made by the hunters on our board are valid.

I for one didn't find protecting the rights of hunters and their hunting dogs to be out of place after hearing their position. Now, did we spend a pile of money on it. Hardly any, if anything at all. We just opposed the legislation and made it official with the legislature. We didn't go to court and spend a lot of money on it. But, we took a position on it.

Let's face the facts, we need hunters, we need competitive shooters and we need Second Amendment folks on the same side. Splitting them and other disciplines of firearms ownership off to fend for themselves is not only not productive, but it will end the rights of one splinter group at a time. This has been a hot-button subject of mine for years. I've been at times just downright pissy with hunters because of their lack of support on CCW and assault weapons.

We have a phony pro-hunter group claiming they want reasonable gun controls, mainly assault weapons bans, limits on handgun ownership etc that exists only to splinter off pro-gun members. A number of hunters are buying into it. That concerns me a lot.

When I hear things like stay out of dog tethering or spay/neuter issue because it is only mildly related to Second Amendment rights, if not at all, what I'm hearing is someone who doesn't hunt (neither do I) and doesn't care about hunting (neither do I) but doesn't want to protect the hunter who uses dogs to engage in those activities.

Some things just fall into other's turf, but it doesn't mean we have to be muzzled because it doesn't directly relate to what others are interested in. If we tell hunters go screw yourself, "we aren't going to be involved," a funny thing happens when it comes to protecting my right to own a semi-auto for target shooting. They won't come to the table. Who needs a semi-auto .223 for hunting anyway? That isn't any way to fight the gun-rights battle. I want shotgunners and bolt-action hunting rifle owners on my side when it comes to protecting my right to carry a concealed handgun, thank you.

If you can't cope with it, so be it. That's your right. But I want everyone who owns a gun, for whatever reason, to be on the same side. We can't afford to lose hunters to a so-called "rights" group that finds my .223 intolerable and unnecessary because you can't hunt with it. That's millions of gun owners we turn off. So, simply acknowledging that we are opposed to the proposed dog laws doesn't cost us anything, but we simply acknowledge that we stand by hunters and their right to raise, breed and manage their dogs in order to hunt. That doesn't hurt too much, does it?

Ralph Weller

hoffmang
02-21-2009, 12:01 PM
The Nordyke case being litigated by Chuck Michel (CRPA/NRA Civil Rights Attorney) for 10 years now has new life as a result of Heller.

Ralph,

This was a mistake by John Fields when he appropriated my release about the case and its best we not perpetuate it. Don Kilmer is the litigator on Nordyke. Chuck is certainly involved and assisting but Don has been slogging through that case on mostly his own dime for a decade.

-Gene

rweller
02-21-2009, 1:31 PM
Ralph,

This was a mistake by John Fields when he appropriated my release about the case and its best we not perpetuate it. Don Kilmer is the litigator on Nordyke. Chuck is certainly involved and assisting but Don has been slogging through that case on mostly his own dime for a decade.

-Gene

You're right. Don Kilmer is the lead litigator, but I can't help but give Michel appropriate due as well. Aside that, Chuck has been heavily involved in others and continues today to be a force in gun rights litigation.

Ralph

jmlivingston
02-21-2009, 1:31 PM
I remember something coming up in past board meetings about family membership. I don't know if we blasted it out or added it to be honest with you. I need to check. But, if it's in the Firing Line magazine I have to assume it's valid, so mail a check in. We'll try and get it online soon.

The family membership came as an option with a renewal letter (from a trial membership which just expired). The check's "in the mail" as they say! ;)

John

berto
02-21-2009, 2:15 PM
Questions on WHO is on the board: The CRPA Board isn't in hiding. There have never been requests by anyone that I'm aware of asking for a list of who they are, or what they look like. However, I understand an effort will be underway shortly to provide some background information and pics of board members on the CRPA website. It's a rather motley looking crew if you ask my opinion, and I lead the group in motliness. I think most of you will find board members aren't much different than you. Most are just very committed to the organization and Second Amendment rights.

Welcome to CalGuns Ralph. I appreciate you being here. A few months ago I sent an email to CRPA asking for BoD info and the bylaws. I've yet to receive a response so I've yet to join. I'm pleased with the recent changes to CRPA and will join shortly in the hope that more changes are to come.

7x57
02-21-2009, 2:38 PM
This is directly referring to the NRA weighing in on laws about tethering or spaying/neutering dogs. They had zero business spending one second of the time gun owners pay for on those issues, on either side.

I could not disagree more. Wars should be fought on other people's real estate before you end up having your own shot up. Part of the reason for such laws is quite nakedly a way for animal rights groups to attack hunters indirectly. It's not any different than trying to shut down shooting ranges with noise or pollution ordinances--those are gun rights issues because they are necessary to be able to exercise our RKBA.

And as a practical matter, hunters won't support the BR people if they don't get supported in turn. When I talk to hunters I try to be very clear that they should be OK with the NRA spending their money to defend (say) black rifles and CCW because if we win there then the war won't come to them directly. If you let your allies be conquered you won't have any allies.

But they very much expect to be supported when they *are* attacked directly. I would not be able to tell hunters why they should support you with total honesty if you will not support them. I suspect as a matter of practical politics this is non-negotiable both from a unity and from a strategic standpoint. For one, if the CRPA adopted your view I would not consider joining them--I'd send that money to COHA instead. I demand hunters organizations support other gunnie issues if they want my money (I actually checked with COHA's relationship with the NRA before deciding they were OK), and it has to work both ways.

7x57

7x57
02-21-2009, 2:42 PM
For those of you who hate CRPA, fire away. I'd love to engage your ideas and thoughts, and who knows, you might change my mind on various positions.

I nominate Ralph as CRPA rep for the proposed Calguns CRPA forum. He's the first CRPA guy here that I think can take the savage beatings that will inevitably involve. :chris:

7x57

rweller
02-21-2009, 2:54 PM
Welcome to CalGuns Ralph. I appreciate you being here. A few months ago I sent an email to CRPA asking for BoD info and the bylaws. I've yet to receive a response so I've yet to join. I'm pleased with the recent changes to CRPA and will join shortly in the hope that more changes are to come.

Berto, If you didn't identify yourself as a member, they probably wouldn't send it out. If you are a member and identified yourself as such, I can't tell you why you wouldn't receive a copy of the bylaws. I don't know of a bylaw that prevents it from being made available to members. And, I don't remember going into a closed session regarding bylaw discussions. I do know this, the bylaw changes have been in the works since before October of last year. Since they were approved this past week, try again. If you get no response, post it and I'll personally follow up on why.

Ralph

rweller
02-21-2009, 2:57 PM
I nominate Ralph as CRPA rep for the proposed Calguns CRPA forum. He's the first CRPA guy here that I think can take the savage beatings that will inevitably involve. :chris:

7x57

OK, I don't mind. But I defer to Gene if he wants to take the job. After all, he's on the board as well and technically he's the first to officially post on Calguns as a CRPA board member.

hoffmang
02-22-2009, 9:08 AM
Welcome to CalGuns Ralph. I appreciate you being here. A few months ago I sent an email to CRPA asking for BoD info and the bylaws. I've yet to receive a response so I've yet to join. I'm pleased with the recent changes to CRPA and will join shortly in the hope that more changes are to come.

Berto,

I've got a request for a clean copy of the bylaws in. I think the issue is simply clerical. Once I get a new copy I'll make sure you have received it as well.

-Gene

dual_mon
02-22-2009, 4:35 PM
Excellent! I just renewed my membership and I am happy that now all my donation stay in California.

The CRPA website, however, still needs help...:D

Frank
CRPA website definitely needs help. I signed up last week, and the distinction between the $22 and two $35 subscription levels is basically impossible to make out. I went for the $35 club level, but have no clue how that differs from the basic level. I just wanted to contribute the extra $13.

jmlivingston
02-22-2009, 5:07 PM
I nominate Ralph as CRPA rep for the proposed Calguns CRPA forum.
7x57

I'll second that one. :)

I haven't made up my mind about Gene being a formal rep though. Simply because he's already here with the CGF, plus he's new to the insides of the CRPA. For now at least, I think I'd rather see others from the CRPA, let the people who've been there a few years and know the inner workings and history come forth and represent their organization. This has nothing to do with what I think about Gene, I've met him several times now and he's certainly an A++ in my book. I definately wouldn't try and stand in his way though, if this was something he wanted to do.

John

Can'thavenuthingood
02-22-2009, 5:10 PM
No, they can't have Gene, he's ours.

They can go find their own genes.:D

Vick

hoffmang
02-22-2009, 5:40 PM
I've already made it known that I don't wish to have moderator privileges in the CRPA forum. However, I'll certainly continue posting at length on the issues.

-Gene

rweller
02-22-2009, 7:17 PM
I've already made it known that I don't wish to have moderator privileges in the CRPA forum. However, I'll certainly continue posting at length on the issues.

-Gene

Can't take the heat Gene?;)

hoffmang
02-22-2009, 7:48 PM
Can't take the heat Gene?;)

Nah. Don't care to look conflicted. You'll note that I often have strong opinions and having the word "Moderator" below my avatar isn't conducive to a frank discussion - especially since it appears in all forums even if I'm only a mod in the CRPA forum :smartass:

You can trust that I'll be participating and moving the conversation forward though.

-Gene

7x57
02-22-2009, 9:24 PM
I nominate Ralph as CRPA rep for the proposed Calguns CRPA forum. He's the first CRPA guy here that I think can take the savage beatings that will inevitably involve. :chris:

7x57

OK, I don't mind.

So it's official--Ralph is OK with the savage beatings. Flog away, savagely!

7x57

wildhawker
02-22-2009, 10:30 PM
So it's official--Ralph is OK with the savage beatings. Flog away, savagely!

7x57

Erthun0Pauc

heyjak
02-22-2009, 10:41 PM
I can't disagree with your position on taking up other issues such as the dog issue, and a mere few years ago I would have agreed with you. But, having been in board meetings when the subjects mentioned come up, such as spaying, neutering and dog restraining, the arguments made by the hunters on our board are valid.

I for one didn't find protecting the rights of hunters and their hunting dogs to be out of place after hearing their position. Now, did we spend a pile of money on it. Hardly any, if anything at all. We just opposed the legislation and made it official with the legislature. We didn't go to court and spend a lot of money on it. But, we took a position on it.

Let's face the facts, we need hunters, we need competitive shooters and we need Second Amendment folks on the same side. Splitting them and other disciplines of firearms ownership off to fend for themselves is not only not productive, but it will end the rights of one splinter group at a time. This has been a hot-button subject of mine for years. I've been at times just downright pissy with hunters because of their lack of support on CCW and assault weapons.

We have a phony pro-hunter group claiming they want reasonable gun controls, mainly assault weapons bans, limits on handgun ownership etc that exists only to splinter off pro-gun members. A number of hunters are buying into it. That concerns me a lot.

When I hear things like stay out of dog tethering or spay/neuter issue because it is only mildly related to Second Amendment rights, if not at all, what I'm hearing is someone who doesn't hunt (neither do I) and doesn't care about hunting (neither do I) but doesn't want to protect the hunter who uses dogs to engage in those activities.

Some things just fall into other's turf, but it doesn't mean we have to be muzzled because it doesn't directly relate to what others are interested in. If we tell hunters go screw yourself, "we aren't going to be involved," a funny thing happens when it comes to protecting my right to own a semi-auto for target shooting. They won't come to the table. Who needs a semi-auto .223 for hunting anyway? That isn't any way to fight the gun-rights battle. I want shotgunners and bolt-action hunting rifle owners on my side when it comes to protecting my right to carry a concealed handgun, thank you.

If you can't cope with it, so be it. That's your right. But I want everyone who owns a gun, for whatever reason, to be on the same side. We can't afford to lose hunters to a so-called "rights" group that finds my .223 intolerable and unnecessary because you can't hunt with it. That's millions of gun owners we turn off. So, simply acknowledging that we are opposed to the proposed dog laws doesn't cost us anything, but we simply acknowledge that we stand by hunters and their right to raise, breed and manage their dogs in order to hunt. That doesn't hurt too much, does it?

Ralph Weller

On the basis of this statement and upon reading the rest of this thread- I'll be RE-JOINING CRPA immediately, but THEY wil be on probation for the next year! I also did a Google search on their (current?) lobbyist (Kathy A. Lynch) and I have reservations about her representing CRPA. From casual observation of her involvement with various clientele I wonder about possible conflicts of interest..... :confused:

rweller
02-23-2009, 6:16 PM
Flogging! Not Stoning! No one said anything about rocks being pitched at me.

I'll be hanging around the CRPA forum from this point on and moving out of this forum.

Thanks again for the warm but rocky welcome.

Ralph

bwiese
02-23-2009, 6:17 PM
Hi, Ralph...

Welcome!

I wanted to say Hi at the Board meeting but you were always chatting with a zillion other folks and I didn't wanna barge in.

ke6guj
02-23-2009, 7:21 PM
- especially since it appears in all forums even if I'm only a mod in the CRPA forum :smartass:
I wonder if the way that the vendor forums are set up that the vendor is a moderator in just that one forum could be used to facilitate this somehow, if it was really important.

jdberger
03-09-2012, 6:18 PM
as I often see on SpongeBob....

"...three years later..."

<sigh/>

goober
03-09-2012, 6:28 PM
sometimes a necropost is warranted...

Zebra
03-09-2012, 7:23 PM
exactly. The CRPA is on a one-year probationary period for me, and their actions will be evaluated when it comes time for renewal.
Probationary period is up. They have decided to commit hara-kiri – hand them a sharp knife and move on.

F.

ke6guj
03-09-2012, 7:40 PM
Probationary period is up. They have decided to commit hara-kiri – hand them a sharp knife and move on.

F.

they seemed to be on the right track so I recently renewed so that I could go to the CRPA banquet. Went to the banquet and then two days later the $H!^ hit the fan.:facepalm:

Mstrty
03-09-2012, 7:40 PM
As a life member this is utterly ridiculous.

Zebra
03-09-2012, 7:53 PM
I hear you!

I let my membership lapse last year 'cuz I didn't see any reason to hold on to it anymore, but this is still a slap in the face...

they seemed to be on the right track so I recently renewed so that I could go to the CRPA banquet. Went to the banquet and then two days later the $H!^ hit the fan.:facepalm:

goober
03-09-2012, 9:12 PM
they seemed to be on the right track so I recently renewed so that I could go to the CRPA banquet. Went to the banquet and then two days later the $H!^ hit the fan.:facepalm:

you were at the banquet?!?
awwww, man, it would have been good to meet you.

ke6guj
03-09-2012, 9:48 PM
yah, I ran into 10%, Bill, and Gene there.

dsmoot
03-10-2012, 8:55 AM
The news from the CRPA battlefront is encouraging. Certainly the changes are due to the efforts of Gene Hoffman, Bill Wiese, members of the CRPA BOD, and that particular brand of encouragement provided by Calguns members.

Fortunately, Mrs. Wrangler and I have until next July to decide on our further support of CRPA. The prognosis appears to be favorable.

In time, over the next few years, it may be helpful for CRPA to consider moving more into instantaneous information sharing offered by the Internet. In this regard I am thinking of upcoming meeting agendas and streaming coverage of the BOD meetings, or a downloadable video of the proceedings. Failing that, a transcribed printed minutes of the meeting would be helpful, available to members only of course. Most members are unable to attend these meetings. I found agenda notices and transcripts of the county Board of Supervisor’s and Park and Recreation Commission meetings a valuable way to stay abreast of the latest issues and policy discussions during my career. Availability of information instills in the membership a feeling of being a participant rather than an observer or someone completely disconnected from the process. Indeed, I receive many NRA legislative action notices after the floor votes have occurred due to limitations of the USPS. Certainty the Firing Line is not adequate for the purpose, while a vital CRPA forum may provide the needed portal.

Thanks again to all the hard working volunteers for their efforts, CRPA can only benefit from their devotion.

I think that you may have missed that the OP was posted quite a long time ago, and the continuation of the reforms started here were basically halted recently. See this other long thread for the context http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=538897

Wrangler John
03-10-2012, 11:54 AM
I think that you may have missed that the OP was posted quite a long time ago, and the continuation of the reforms started here were basically halted recently. See this other long thread for the context http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=538897

Thank you for pointing that out. Such errors are the result of multiple threads on a topic with old content being bumped up and my skimming the posts. I deleted my post.