PDA

View Full Version : What are your 'Top 3' ??


lavgrunt
03-04-2009, 11:14 PM
Just checkin,'.....Now that the budget mess is over in Sacto, at least for now, what do you feel should be the top 3 legislative priorities for CRPA and its allies?? If it's realistic or plausible is insignificant. Lets pretend it's a perfect world.......We need a starting point.........Thanks for your input!!

nicki
03-05-2009, 3:46 AM
Of course we should defend against all bad bills, that being said, we need to go on offense. Key to improving our chances of winning are to propose bills that can help the rights of others.

1. Color of Law and malicious prosecutions: We must streamline the process for someone who is persecuted by the local DA, a example are gun owners being prosecuted for unloaded open carry or so called "loaded" gun violations.

2. The Cal DOJ firearms division has tried to slip in underground regulations and pull fast ones on the office of administrative law. Currently right now the Federal Government has a paperwork reduction act, the key to their law is that government forms must first be approved by the OMB, then the forms are assigned a control number and a expiration date.

The key to getting a form approved is the agency has to show the statutory authority to create the form in the first place.

The paperwork reduction act says that Fed forms that are information collection requests that lack a OMB number are bootleg and can be ignored by the public since they have no force of law.

Now, if we put penalties on agencies that tried to use bootleg forms, that would give redress for administrative abuse.

3. Push a stolen gun bill that requires LE agencies to contact owners of stolen firearms. Not contacting owners means that possibly other crimes are not being properly followed up on. Require firearms to be returned ASAP.

Firearms should be returned in proper condition, the person who got caught with a stolen gun should be assessed a additional penalty for servicing on a stolen firearm.

Right now stolen guns have the potential of becoming so called "drop guns".

4. Subject police officers to the same gun laws as civilians for their private guns.

Nicki

Can'thavenuthingood
03-05-2009, 11:56 AM
The word Repeal comes to mind, when was the last time anything was repealed?

Shall Issue.

If someone has already owns a firearm why must they wait 10 days?

Vick

slowjonn
03-05-2009, 12:02 PM
1. Get rid of the "Safe Handgun" list. I know about the nerfs, but that list just needs to die.

2. Shall issue CCW

3. Repeal of the AW law.

berto
03-05-2009, 10:45 PM
1. Shall issue

2. Safe list

3. AWB

Put us on equal footing with America.

wildhawker
03-06-2009, 8:31 AM
A perfect world would include incorporation, so we'll use that as the context for this exercise.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=145910

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=133664&highlight=priority

My question for CRPA: are you basing your strategy on a Nordyke win? Many of the priorities stated in previous posts can and likely will be addressed (to some degree or another) via the courts. If so, shouldn't "... the top 3 legislative priorities for CRPA and its allies..." be based on facets more readily or expediently taken up in the legislature?

wildhawker
03-06-2009, 6:13 PM
I would have thought we'd see some sort of response to this in the past 16 hours...

no more from Calgunners or CRPA?

rweller
03-07-2009, 4:01 PM
WOW! It seems that the short list revolves around Shall Issue, AWB and dumping the Safe List.

The original question was what should be the top 3 for the legislature. Here's the bad news. The majority in the Assembly are hopelessly anti-gun liberals and have been since 1998. Nothing has changed, there are no more pro-gun members in the Assembly than there were 11 years ago. In fact, its makeup today, according to CRPA's legislative advocate, is more anti-gun since the recent elections than ever.

The Senate surprisingly might be a little more pro-gun, or as the case may be, a little less anti-gun than in past years. All this means that if anti-gun bills come up that require expenditure of funds, there is a chance it can be stopped due to a slight shift in its makeup. But, make no mistake, it is still anti-gun.

The problem in California has been and continues to be a majority in the legislature with an anti-gun bent.

I say this because we act as though all we have to do is get the legislature to pass pro-gun bills and life is good. We will NOT get a shall-issue bill out of this legislature. We will NOT get them to rescind the AWB. And, it is doubtful that the Safe List will go away. This of course assumes that we continue with the legislature in its current makeup. The best that can be hoped for is to mitigate the damage of some of the bills, and that is what our legislative advocate and NRA try and do in Sacramento.

I'm continually amazed at how gun owners in California think all we have to do is send a legislative advocate in Sacramento, throw a little money around and we will get what we want. Not in California. It's filled with legislators who aren't swayed by money on conservative issues. They are socialists at heart. Most do not feel you should own any gun, let alone a semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military weapon. And "shall-issue" is reserved for people who have political connections. Why do you think the current law favors counties issuing CCWs in this state? Because Sheriffs are politicians first, in most cases, and law enforcement officers second. There are a number of exceptions, of which I know personally. But if you think LA, San Diego and other large counties are going to span a non-partisan, non-politician type Sheriff, you must be smoking something funny, because it isn't happening.

If we want the legislature to give us our gun rights back, we have to vote for pro-gun candidates. Easily said isn't it. But, here's the dirty secret that every Democrat in Sacramento knows. Gun owners in the populous counties/cities in California areas don't vote in enough numbers to make a whit of difference in the elections. I know that is a generalized statement, and I know some of you vote, as do I, will take offense to my statement. However, it is an unfortunate fact. I published an article after the 2004 elections based on a study of a district in Orange/La County in which a candidate studied a gun show list attendees and how many were registered to vote in the district he ran in. To his surprise it was far less than 6%.

Now, I ask you: How does anyone expect to get anything when gun owners aren't voting? I would submit that an informal poll of Calguns members would certainly yield a higher percentage. But, the appalling thing is, I bet a lot of you don't vote.

Having said that, the hope in the short term 3-5 year period are court challenges based on Heller. The AWB is on the target list for sure. Whether "Shall Issue" has any legs in the court is debatable. I'm not a lawyer, but our only hope is whittling it down over time. And, hoping Illinois gets their CCW, which is being pushed now. California not having a "shall issue" will loom bigger as it begins to stand alone trying to justify why its politicians won't allow its citizens the same protection as most every other state, including liberal ones. Maybe they can be embarrassed into doing something, though I doubt it.

But, having said all that, I believe our single biggest issue in California is getting all gun owners to vote. If that is done, we can start to make progress in the legislature.

How about Calguns members. How many of you DON'T VOTE? I'd like to know why you won't register. I think I've heard it all, but you never know. Maybe someone has a legitimate reason that I haven't heard yet.

Ralph Weller
CRPA Board Member
Editor: GunNewsDaily.com

Can'thavenuthingood
03-09-2009, 10:53 PM
The 6% number for gun owners voting sounded a bit skewed in some manner. I posted a Poll here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=160823) and though it is no bonafide study it does show 98% of Calgunners vote in statewide elections.
Only 107 answered Yes they vote, 2 said No they do not.

Enough of a sample to establish a strong indication that as a whole Calgunners vote. We discuss the issues, research the issues and dive into the Penal Codes as well as all California Law. We watch the politickers and listen to them while they are in session and voting.
We are a voting bloc the politicians can hear breathing in their chambers.

Back in 2004 when the 6% story was written Calguns had about 5,000(?) members if that. About 3 weeks ago when we went to work on the Calguns booth for the Cow Palace show we were right at 21,000 folks and as of this writng 24,580 registered members are calling themselves Calgunners.

Read some of the comments of the newer members just signing up now. Some have been on this sight for several years lurking, watching and learning. The Cow Palace show booth ignited their desire to do something positive, to jump into the fray and do battle with those who think gun owners are a passive lot. The lurkers registered and have joined us as Activist's.

More shows are coming and we will be there. Not as a recruitment drive for Calguns but as an answer to the question 'Why isn't someone doing something?'

We have no committees, we collect no dues. we meet whenever we log onto the forum.
Right now I think its safe to say that the 24,000 number is easily doubled due to spuose's and significant others. Thats 48,000 people.

Then I'd say there are probably another 20,000 in lurk mode watching, reading, researching and deciding issues. If they had no interest in guns they would not be here on this forum so my guess is they can be counted as more folks thinking like a Calgunner.

So thats about 68,000 voters right there and I think that is a very conservative figure given the crowds at the gun shows and California's 36 million people.

The 6% figure of gun owners voting is obsolete and misleading to the politicians.

Vick

rweller
03-10-2009, 7:28 PM
Hi Vick,

It wouldn't surprise me if a higher percentage of Calguns members voted. I think we are talking with folks here who are committed to the cause and have no fear.

I was shocked by the numbers as well. But I've worked gun shows in So Cal for years. Trying to get gun show attendees to register to vote is impossible. Most aren't interested. And the reasons they give are rather lame. The most popular one I have heard over the years by far is that they don't want the government to know who they are. Is that a joke or what?

I suppose if they don't have a drivers license, never paid taxes, never registered the vehicle that they drove to the gun show, or never purchased a handgun in California in the last twenty plus years, I might buy into their story. But, how can you take people like that seriously.

The second most popular, which defies common sense is, they don't want the government to know they own guns. What? What does voting have to do with owning guns? Apparently nothing to you and me, but to them it's an answer that defies logic.

I have to tell you Vick, I don't have much faith in the everyday run-of-the-mill gun owner. I vote, you vote and no doubt those faithful that hit this site regularly vote. But it's the guys lurking in the wings around this site (non-members) and the other 5 - 10 million gun owners in California that I fear don't participate. If they did, and voted for gun rights, California would be a different place. There is no question about that. Gun owners are a large portion of the population.

As I said then, and I'll say it again now, gun owners have no clue what kind of horsepower they have at the polling booth. They have enormous clout, they just don't take advantage of it.

Ralph

7x57
03-10-2009, 8:14 PM
I was shocked by the numbers as well. But I've worked gun shows in So Cal for years. Trying to get gun show attendees to register to vote is impossible.

And here I was thinking we should be signing up voters at every NRA booth. Another good idea down in flames.

7x57

AlexBreya
03-10-2009, 8:17 PM
1. Get rid of 2A
2. Get rid of 1A
3. Punish success

:)

wildhawker
03-10-2009, 9:34 PM
Hi Vick,

It wouldn't surprise me if a higher percentage of Calguns members voted. I think we are talking with folks here who are committed to the cause and have no fear.

I was shocked by the numbers as well. But I've worked gun shows in So Cal for years. Trying to get gun show attendees to register to vote is impossible. Most aren't interested. And the reasons they give are rather lame. The most popular one I have heard over the years by far is that they don't want the government to know who they are. Is that a joke or what?

I suppose if they don't have a drivers license, never paid taxes, never registered the vehicle that they drove to the gun show, or never purchased a handgun in California in the last twenty plus years, I might buy into their story. But, how can you take people like that seriously.

The second most popular, which defies common sense is, they don't want the government to know they own guns. What? What does voting have to do with owning guns? Apparently nothing to you and me, but to them it's an answer that defies logic.

I have to tell you Vick, I don't have much faith in the everyday run-of-the-mill gun owner. I vote, you vote and no doubt those faithful that hit this site regularly vote. But it's the guys lurking in the wings around this site (non-members) and the other 5 - 10 million gun owners in California that I fear don't participate. If they did, and voted for gun rights, California would be a different place. There is no question about that. Gun owners are a large portion of the population.

As I said then, and I'll say it again now, gun owners have no clue what kind of horsepower they have at the polling booth. They have enormous clout, they just don't take advantage of it.

Ralph

Then let's help each other here- we can definitely appreciate your experience in this regard. In return, we'll organize friendly, passionate and knowledgeable Calgunners into PR teams throughout the state which can be effective tools for the RKBA fight if properly utilized.

We don't plan on keeping the Calguns public events constrained to gun shows, although we are using them as the learning curve; we definitely have plans to branch out into other forums (so to speak), and build relationships and synergies with sympathetic groups and individuals. In fact we'd love to be a part of one of your functions sometime in the near future.

Let's work together and gain some traction; if things are truly as bad as you say (and I'm not doubting you here), it may not be shooting fish in a barrel but surely the odds are good that we'll have opportunity- a truly critical component in the equation.

Now, back on topic. What are the CRPA's top 3 priorities from your perspective? We never established if these were based on a Nordyke win or not, which does change the approach in my mind.

Mssr. Eleganté
03-10-2009, 10:30 PM
The 6% number for gun owners voting sounded a bit skewed in some manner. I posted a Poll here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=160823) and though it is no bonafide study it does show 98% of Calgunners vote in statewide elections.

Only 107 answered Yes they vote, 2 said No they do not.


But that means only 109 Calgunners out of 9,276 active Calguns members even took the time to vote in your poll. Only 1.2% voter turnout. :p

You basically asked people to vote on whether they vote or not. :p

Can'thavenuthingood
03-11-2009, 12:07 PM
But that means only 109 Calgunners out of 9,276 active Calguns members even took the time to vote in your poll. Only 1.2% voter turnout. :p

You basically asked people to vote on whether they vote or not. :p

I figured more like a 30% vote as in total number of Calgunners vs actual voters. All CG'ers are eligible so the low turnout would reflect the national numbers if I remember correctly.

Regardless, the high percentage gives me a happy face:D

Its better once we get them assimulated into the Calguns Mission and the CGN booths at the gun shows appear to be doing just that.
Our 2nd show booth is at Del Mar the 21st then maybe Bakersfield and Costa Mesa for sure.

Vick





Vick

rweller
03-13-2009, 8:11 PM
Then let's help each other here- we can definitely appreciate your experience in this regard. In return, we'll organize friendly, passionate and knowledgeable Calgunners into PR teams throughout the state which can be effective tools for the RKBA fight if properly utilized.

Now, back on topic. What are the CRPA's top 3 priorities from your perspective? We never established if these were based on a Nordyke win or not, which does change the approach in my mind.

1. This one is a work in progress and still underway and that's building the CRPA Foundation. It was established a couple of years ago. This organization will focus, among other things like the NRA-ILA on legal issues, such as litigation within California against gun laws. We have one of the finest civil rights attorney specializing in Second Amendment issues, Chuck Michel, who will be working on legal issues. We are gearing it up right now.

2. The second, which has been on-going for the last year, is rebuilding our alliance with NRA. We are the NRA state affiliate for California, but our relationship for a number of years has been at arms length. That has been closed as of late and we are now working closely with NRA on common goals within California. We both need to be on the same sheet of music, not on our own agendas when it comes to California. That has been fixed.

3. CRPA, as a number of board members will agree, is one of California's best kept secrets. We have a loyal following, but it has been in recent years by word of mouth. As a result our membership has dropped steadily for at least 8 years. We just don't do a good job of getting our name out there. The board recognizes that we need to do a better job of marketing the organization. We need to get our name in front of gun owners.

One way to meet that objective is to use media tools. However, we took it one step further. Ideally, radio advertising is a great tool for CRPA, but advertising across California can get very expensive to penetrate a state this size with population centers stretched six hundred miles apart. I have purchased radio advertising for my own business, and it can get financially oppressive when attempting to penetrate a market.

So rather than buy advertising a minute at a pop, we in essence started our own three hour radio show. CRPA funds and owns half of a radio show called the "Radio Detective" with our host Jerry Pearce. Jerry is a former cop, detective, commander, and hard-core Second Amendment rights person and has been working at a Fresno radio station for a few years. He owns 1/4 of the show. We contracted with a couple of radio show promoters and experts in their field. One started and produced the Dr. Laura show, among others, so he knows the business. They produce the show and own 1/4 of it as well. It is now in the process of being syndicated across California. The show has been picked up the ESPN affiliate in Fresno. Recently, KERN, a 50,000 watt station at the southern end of the central valley has shown interest in the show. AM830 in LA, a 50000 watt station and home of Angels baseball has picked up the show within the last two months or so. And, oddly, a station in Florida picked it up. Other stations are coming on line in California and the state should be blanketed from the Mexican border to Oregon within the next several months.

Now, we went into this in a big way, building a broadcast studio and the works. The signal is sent to New York, uplinked to Satellite and picked up by the stations in California via satellite. We are the prime sponsor, so we get a lot advertising out of Jerry because the show is "brought to you by the California Rifle and Pistol Association". It airs from 11:00 PM to 2:00 AM Mon through Fri.

If you're a late night radio wonk, you know the big gorilla out there is Coast to Coast. We believe, and so do our producers, that those stations who don't carry Coast to Coast would love an alternative. So far it seems to be heading in that direction.

The results, even though it is still very early has been positive. Our membership has stopped eroding within the last year and we are beginning to see an upturn in our membership, especially since the show started up in last fall. Our goal, using the radio show and other marketing tools is to get our membership back up to 100,000 gun owners. I believe we have turned the corner and are starting to move in the right direction.

These are things that we have been working on. The CRPA Foundation is critical to shutting down some of the California laws that have been hounding gun owners in this state for years. We need members, we need donations.

Just to let you know how committed we are and how good our legal team is, we honored the District Attorney of Kern county as a our law enforcement officer of the year at our annual banquet in Feb of this year.

He pointed out during is speech that the amicus brief that CRPA submitted for Heller in conjunction with the Texas Rifle Association was lifted by Justice Scalia word for word in a lot of areas of his opinion. Not only sentences but entire paragraphs were used from our amicus brief. I am very proud to say CRPA played an important role in the Heller case. But, Heller was only the beginning. It opened the door to new cases that prior to Heller would not even be considered. But it takes money. We have the legal minds and the commitment, we just need more money. We have to have a break-through case and there are probably a half dozen in California that could provide the means for incorporation of the Second Amendment. The Nordyke case included.

I'm going to put on my marketing hat and ask all those who might read this, if you want to join a great organization, please take a moment to visit CRPA.org and sign up as a member. The $22 is a bargain. We have a new highly focused and energetic Executive Director who is moving us along day-to-day and a person that I admire a lot for his unique ideas, sharp mind, clear thinking and common sense approach to matters. So please join us.

There's a dozen other smaller projects such as working on getting more junior competitive shooters, CCW project, expanding air gun competition, which we have seen gaining a lot of steam within California in the past year. It offers a great venue for junior shooters. That's it for now.

Ralph

prob
03-13-2009, 10:59 PM
Hi Vick,

It wouldn't surprise me if a higher percentage of Calguns members voted. I think we are talking with folks here who are committed to the cause and have no fear.

I was shocked by the numbers as well. But I've worked gun shows in So Cal for years. Trying to get gun show attendees to register to vote is impossible. Most aren't interested. And the reasons they give are rather lame. The most popular one I have heard over the years by far is that they don't want the government to know who they are. Is that a joke or what?

I suppose if they don't have a drivers license, never paid taxes, never registered the vehicle that they drove to the gun show, or never purchased a handgun in California in the last twenty plus years, I might buy into their story. But, how can you take people like that seriously.

The second most popular, which defies common sense is, they don't want the government to know they own guns. What? What does voting have to do with owning guns? Apparently nothing to you and me, but to them it's an answer that defies logic.

I have to tell you Vick, I don't have much faith in the everyday run-of-the-mill gun owner. I vote, you vote and no doubt those faithful that hit this site regularly vote. But it's the guys lurking in the wings around this site (non-members) and the other 5 - 10 million gun owners in California that I fear don't participate. If they did, and voted for gun rights, California would be a different place. There is no question about that. Gun owners are a large portion of the population.

As I said then, and I'll say it again now, gun owners have no clue what kind of horsepower they have at the polling booth. They have enormous clout, they just don't take advantage of it.

Ralph

An excellent observation of the behavior of MOST gun owners.

I can't begin to tell you haw many times I've seen people walk past and ignore the NRA booth at the entrance to a gun show. You'd think the guys who were volunteering their time were hawking vacuum cleaners.

I too have heard that tired old refrain about people not wanting the government to know they own firearms. It's a statement that always invokes a sense of wonderment and awe at the level of ignorance out there in the land of gun owners.

I've long since lost faith in the political clout of gun owners. We could make a difference if we wanted, but the guy who heads out to the mountains once a year to hunt deer is so convinced that he'll never be affected by mindless legislation that he'll never be bothered to go out and vote. I can think of no group with greater political apathy than gun owners - as far as I'm concerned, they're their own worst enemies.

Can'thavenuthingood
03-14-2009, 8:49 AM
An excellent observation of the behavior of MOST gun owners.

I can't begin to tell you haw many times I've seen people walk past and ignore the NRA booth at the entrance to a gun show. You'd think the guys who were volunteering their time were hawking vacuum cleaners.

I too have heard that tired old refrain about people not wanting the government to know they own firearms. It's a statement that always invokes a sense of wonderment and awe at the level of ignorance out there in the land of gun owners.

I've long since lost faith in the political clout of gun owners. We could make a difference if we wanted, but the guy who heads out to the mountains once a year to hunt deer is so convinced that he'll never be affected by mindless legislation that he'll never be bothered to go out and vote. I can think of no group with greater political apathy than gun owners - as far as I'm concerned, we are our own worst enemies.

Fixed that:)

I agree and that is one of if not the primary reason for the Calguns booths at the gun shows.
We are making an attempt to speak with gun owners about legislation, voting and an awareness of Calguns.net for information regarding all aspects of firearms ownership.

Until we as individuals can work together as a cohesive voting bloc there will be few changes in gun laws except through the courts.

We are too easily picked off as individuals and too easily segregated into smaller segments and defeated. We have to see the big picture and go beyond our personal feelings and opinions. Egos I suppose is blocking the way to smooth sailing.

Vick

Hopi
03-14-2009, 8:56 AM
Perfect world?

1. Place RKBA in the CA constitution.
2. Remove and replace every current member of CA government.
3. Ship Pelosi/Feinstein/Boxer/AM/Zoe Lofgren/Henry Waxman to FT. Worth, TX

rweller
03-14-2009, 10:58 AM
Perfect world?

1. Place RKBA in the CA constitution.
2. Remove and replace every current member of CA government.
3. Ship Pelosi/Feinstein/Boxer/AM/Zoe Lofgren/Henry Waxman to FT. Worth, TX

I love how your mind works. Only one addition. Charge each of them with treason, convict them, then throw them in Gitmo for the rest of their miserable lives and let the military and our terrorist enemies deal with them. Hell would look inviting after a short period of time.

Ralph

wildhawker
03-14-2009, 1:04 PM
Ralph,

Thanks for your response- it is greatly appreciated and gives us some idea as to the current state of the organization and its priorities.

What I gathered from the above is that CRPA is focused on

1. Building the CRPA Foundation
2. Rebuilding the CRPA/NRA relationship
3. Increasing CRPA membership

All those enumerated goals seem to be in the best interest of the organization. How does the CRPA 2009 Initiative (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=144642) integrate with these goals, and where do the reforms of the organization come into the picture?

I'm hopeful that the CRPA Foundation and CGF will not expend valuable resources in redundant efforts- it seems that there is some potential for overlap which I'm sure will be carefully coordinated between the two organizations.

Going back to lavgrunt's original inquiry with regard to the top 3 legislative priorities for CRPA and its allies, could you elaborate on what CRPA feels its top 3 legislative priorities are for 2009 and what we, as the membership, can do to assist?

Again, thanks for being here and sharing with us some perspectives from the organization.

Best,

Brandon Combs

rweller
03-14-2009, 6:13 PM
CRPA Foundation joins Calguns and SAF Foundation in Washington DC lawsuit challenging the use of California's approved guns list - CRPA - Story (http://www.crpa.org/dept.aspx?dept_id=08)

AngelDecoys
03-14-2009, 6:37 PM
What do you feel should be the top 3 legislative priorities for CRPA and its allies??

1. Modernize the background checks in CA. Since I don't see them disappearing in CA altogether via instant check how about eliminating them for CCW holders, or owners who already own handguns (Since handguns are already registered couldn't that be done with a quick phone call?).

2. Perhaps reform the background process so that there is an all digital method to start a dros. Might be an option that some FFL's (who sell online) might want to do. Driver's license and proof of residence could still be checked upon pickup. It would eliminate 2 trips to a store.

3. Since Nordyke is likely to have already been decided, how about pushing either the outright appeal of the AW ban, or opening up registration (like handguns) if that's the PC way to get the job done. We'd all prefer it being repealed but if the issue can move our way, that's money better spent in court elsewhere on other issues.

4. In my dream world, all firearm related merchandise should be tax free. :thumbsup:

wildhawker
03-14-2009, 9:47 PM
CRPA Foundation joins Calguns and SAF Foundation in Washington DC lawsuit challenging the use of California's approved guns list - CRPA - Story (http://www.crpa.org/dept.aspx?dept_id=08)

Ralph,

I'm hopeful that CRPA will actually take the time to communicate with its members who visit Calguns and answer the questions we've posed in this and other threads. It's great to hear the positive impact "The Radio Detective" show is making for CRPA, but elaborating on the organization's marketing strategy and carefully avoiding the substantive issues does little to comfort those who have a deep concern (mistrust?) for the direction of the CRPA.

I'm sure the CRPA Board is well aware of this petition (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=154117) (the read link for which is still at the top of Calguns homepage at this time, actual petition here (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/crpa-petition/signatures-1.html)); it would seem that the CRPA forum here at Calguns and this thread would provide a golden opportunity to connect with the membership and reach out to those disenfranchised with the CRPA of the past. If the CRPA wants to increase its member rolls, it may want to start right here.

If you and lavgrunt are not authorized to speak on behalf of CRPA in the context of answering some of the questions posed here, the responses to date are completely understandable; if that is the case, what could we do to entice those who could to join this forum and participate in the discussion? Truly, know that I (personally) am optomistic about the "trifecta" of NRA, CGF and CRPA for the furtherance of gun rights here in California. Surely, then, you can understand my frustrations when I tell you that for someone who vocally supported the opening of this forum (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=1898199&highlight=CRPA+2009#post1898199)as a vehicle for positive change and communication, it has so far been underutilized.

ETA:

Ralph,

I suggest that again you please be more accurate instead of misleading. CRPA is going to file an Amicus brief. Attempting to claim more than that is bad form.

This is not the place to try to spin.

-Gene

rweller
03-14-2009, 11:50 PM
First, my apologies if my post was misleading regarding CRPA's involvement in the D.C. issue. That was not the intent. The link to the release was posted which explains CRPA involvement. I would think the amicus brief would be welcome in attempting to provide support to Calguns and SAF.

As for the top 3 legislative goals. I am not a member of the CRPA Legislative Committee, nor did I attend their last committee meeting. I don't know what the 3 top legislative goals are for CRPA this year. I'm not sure we even know what the goals of the legislature are yet other than the bills introduced to date. Usually they drop a hint as to what their expectations are regarding gun control objectives. I have not heard anything out of Sacramento yet, though someone in the forum may add some light.

Anti-gunners outnumber pro-gunners in the legislature by a wide margin. That's the grim reality. It's hard to create an objective when they won't let a pro-gun bill out of committee. And, with the expletive deleted likes of our governor willing to sign legislation like he's imitating Gray Davis, you can't win.

The legislature will only do something if they sense a major shift in public opinion that jeopardizes their jobs in the voting booth.

Meanwhile, there is a shift that is clearly obvious since Heller. The shift has been to 2nd Amendment incorporation via the court system. Then the limits of the court needs to be tested. It is widely felt, both here and nationwide, that an incorporation case has the best chance of coming out of California. Whether it's Nordyke or not, I don't know. It may, or it may be another case. But that's the shift that is going on. Heller has opened up opportunities that pro-gun and anti-gun organizations feared to tread prior to Heller. CRPA is shifting heavily towards litigation recognizing that is where we, Calguns, and NRA can make the most headway.

I do know this, that if we had ignored Sacramento over the past ten years, the level of gun control would be worse than what it is today. Both NRA and CRPA have had a very difficult job in a very negative environment to get pieces of bills removed that were far worse. I know their efforts aren't appreciated by some, but having watched it the last few years from the CRPA perspective, I now have a better appreciation of what the lobbyists go through up there. It isn't a fun job.

Maybe another CRPA board member can help answer what the legislative agenda is for CRPA this year. I just haven't been as close to it as I should be, but I've been tied up in some other objectives.

I guess, since I'm new here, I would like to know what the legislative agenda is for Calguns, or does Calguns primarily focus on litigation through the foundation?

Ralph

Can'thavenuthingood
03-16-2009, 7:53 PM
I guess, since I'm new here, I would like to know what the legislative agenda is for Calguns, or does Calguns primarily focus on litigation through the foundation?

Ralph

Hmmmm, a good question for anyone joining Calguns and its a still fairly new area for many of us old guys.
2nd part first, I think yes Litigation is primarily focused through the CG Foundation.

The Legislative aspects we have been relying on Calgunners up in Sacramento and throughout the state to raise the Alert level when something has come up in the past needing all hands attention. Mike Haas was a big player in this area and then he passed that baton onto another Calgunner. Mike still gets in but the day to day is another Calgunner.
We all watch, read and observe whats going on as much as possible in so far as the Assembly and Senate Bills. We'll read and pick apart and call for Fax'es, phone calls and emails as well as snail mail.

AB 357 is a prime example of this.
I think it was Librarian that put the post in the thread then we started looking at it, some discussion and then started contacting our Assemblymen and encouraging others. This was when it was determined it wasn't going to get any legs or go anywhere.

We're not giving up and kept pushing the politickers on this Shall Issue issue. And we are still pushing to this day by contacting the Safety Committee. Recent posts have said the staffers are ahead of our guys when bringing up the topic of AB 357.

We are I suppose a loose knit bunch all heading in the same organized direction.
With 25,000 plus by now there are a lot of eyes watching everyone that has anything to do with our gun rights. From politickers to other pro gun organizations all of you guys are being watched, its the nature of the beast.

We wonder what was going on all those years ago that brought us to this point in time of the pro gun fight.
We hear you tell us that you done good and if it wasn't for you we wouldn't have the rights we currently enjoy.
What comes to your mind when you hear someone say something like that?

So with or without any sort of leadership we know what we as individuals want regarding pro gun legislation. We will and are banding together to get it done. You as CRPA can get out in front or get out of the way is probably the majority of thinking here on Calguns.

I can appreciate the NRA staying below the radar and working behind the scenes as they ought to. The NRA brings a negative reflex from virtually all who are moderate to left leaning anti gun types, my observation and opinion. They are a National organization.
We and the CRPA are the home grown neighbors and constituents of the politickers. We and the CRPA ought to be out in front above the berm and engaged in a full frontal assault. We are the voters. We are the NRA. We are Californians.

An agenda?
Shall Issue
Repeal of 10 round limitations
Repeal of waiting periods
I already own a gun why do I have to wait 10 days for another?

Others can chime in with more.

An agenda ought to be easy enough for an outfit that has been floating around the state capital for years to put together.

We cannot rely on someone else to protect our rights, we now realize only we as individuals can protect our rights. All others are mercenaries with no vested interest from the politicians point of view.

That got long.
Ralph when I speak of 'you' in the above paragraph's I'm referring to the CRPA as you, not personal.

Vick

5hundo
03-17-2009, 9:50 AM
My three "top" priorities would be:

1. Creating a database so that returning customers, who already own firearms, would not have to wait the "cooling off" period for buying firearms. It seems stupid to make someone who already owns a gun, wait 10 days to take another gun that they just purchased. This database could also be used to store information about felons and other persons not eligible to purchase firearms.

2. Repealing the .50 BMG ban. This legislation is effectively useless and prevents absolutely NO crime.

3. Exempting unbuilt firearm frames from meeting the "safety standards" for handguns in CA. I miss being able to build 1911s... :(

There are, of course, other issues but those are my "main" issues... :thumbsup:

wildhawker
03-17-2009, 10:30 AM
My three "top" priorities would be:

1. Creating a database so that returning customers, who already own firearms, would not have to wait the "cooling off" period for buying firearms. It seems stupid to make someone who already owns a gun, wait 10 days to take another gun that they just purchased. This database could also be used to store information about felons and other persons not eligible to purchase firearms.

2. Repealing the .50 BMG ban. This legislation is effectively useless and prevents absolutely NO crime.

3. Exempting unbuilt firearm frames from meeting the "safety standards" for handguns in CA. I miss being able to build 1911s... :(

There are, of course, other issues but those are my "main" issues... :thumbsup:

No database; a CCW permit (of course, shall issue) should suffice ;)

For your no. 3, see "NeRF"

5hundo
03-17-2009, 11:28 AM
No database; a CCW permit (of course, shall issue) should suffice ;)

Yeah, of course...

Works for me!!! ;)

For your no. 3, see "NeRF"

I must admit a little ignorance to the "Non-registered Firearms" issue and it's current status.

Where are we with this? Are frames legal again? I know 80% frames are but what about complete, buildable frames? :confused:

wildhawker
03-17-2009, 12:03 PM
Yeah, of course...

Works for me!!! ;)

I must admit a little ignorance to the "Non-registered Firearms" issue and it's current status.

Where are we with this? Are frames legal again? I know 80% frames are but what about complete, buildable frames? :confused:

Here's the new thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=157784).

There's another thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=136084&highlight=nerf) as well, but has over 1k posts, so start with the new one and work backwards :)

sorensen440
03-17-2009, 12:24 PM
No database; a CCW permit (of course, shall issue) should suffice ;)


I agree
no database needed and I would personally choose to wait 10 days for pickup to avoid being in a database.

epic4444
03-19-2009, 7:13 PM
.1 10 wait not need for gun owners who have already purhcased a gun in california
.2 CCW...cant believe how impossible it is to get one
.3 The Safe Gun list is a joke

rweller
03-20-2009, 6:52 PM
Great agendas from all.

A couple of things I wanted to add.

When the CRPA board met in mid-Feb, Sacramento was in turmoil because of the budget issue. Generally what happens is this; In December before the next session starts, the Democratic leadership starts leaking their agenda for the coming session. That's when CRPA, NRA, and pro-gun orgs find out what the plans are for gun control for the coming year.

There was no agenda established this session, and by the time the board met, there wasn't any bills introduced to speak of to even give us a hint as to what was going on. The CRPA legislative committee didn't have much to work with. Therefore our agenda was somewhat skimpy at that time. But, that is only the beginning of the agenda, and during the year things come up that can change the agenda. It usually revolves around some surprise deal that's forced into a spot bill. There are a coupe of spot bills listed on the firearms bills this year. What they will end up being is anyone's guess, but they need to be watched closely or we can get surprised in the middle of the night. Meanwhile, the legislative committee and officers are analyzing the bills introduced since our board meeting.

As for the shall-issue bill introduced by Assemblyman Knight, I have been skeptical in this post about its possibilities. Like most everyone here who is familiar with the political make-up of Sacramento, there are doubts about it getting out of committee to the floor for a vote. The committees are heavily stacked with liberals to the point that Republicans don't have the ability to use rules or parliamentary procedure to push something out. But, my skepticism is unfair, especially when said by me.

On at least one occasion, possibly a couple, I have stood in front of the board asking for an annual shall-issue CCW bill be introduced to the legislature, regardless of its chances. But do it every year. Sometimes, it makes sense to keep putting a bill out there every year so that it gains some momentum by bloggers, the press, and gun owners. An example has been "One Bill Gil" Cedillo with his illegal alien drivers license bills every year. It kept getting shot down year after year, and finally it worked its way out until it got blasted out of law I believe in 2003/2004 because of voter outrage and the removal of Gray Davis. The legislature was scared at that time so they reversed their approval from the previous session as I recall. But, despite heavy criticism for his bill, he was not deterred. He kept pushing it annually until it finally passed, even though the majority of Californians didn't want it.

I think the same thing applies here. I have no illusions about shall-issue making it out of committee this year. I would be surprised and over-joyed if it did, but I think what can happen is for it to simmer for a couple of years and pick up momentum as people such as Calgunners talk about it, bloggers pick up on it and others who don't even know about it pick up on it. In other words, it needs to be sold and marketed over time. I hate it that it must be done this way, but that's what gets bills out of committee and on to the floor for debate and a vote eventually. With that comes a voting record, and subsequently some action can be taken on those who might be vulnerable in marginal districts. Again, I would be surprised if it worked its way out of committee this year, but stranger things have happened, so who knows.

As for the quote: "I can appreciate the NRA staying below the radar and working behind the scenes as they ought to. The NRA brings a negative reflex from virtually all who are moderate to left leaning anti gun types, my observation and opinion. They are a National organization."

I thought the same way for a number of years, but I have to tell you, the NRA can motivate, rally, run email lists and send letters like no state level organization can. And, the press loves to quote them. I'm a big proponent of getting media exposure for our issues, and if it means we push the NRA out in front to be the spokesperson for California in order to get the publicity for our agenda, I'm all for it. To be brutally frank, CRPA and Calguns just doesn't have the media draw that the NRA has.... yet. I say yet, because I feel strongly if CRPA, Calguns, Gun Owners of California and local organizations can work in concert, we have some opportunities to build a powerful coalition in the state. What that can lead to, I can't predict the future, but it is certainly worth a try to see what damage can be done. It's all about the numbers.

As for the lefties who don't like the NRA. I could care less anymore. I used to be concerned about what the mass media thought, until it became apparent to me over the years that they are bought and owned by far left liberals. I don't care what the media thinks anymore, and I could care even less about what the people who pee in their pants every time they see Katie Couric. In other words, I would rather have NRA being dumped on by the LA Times and SF Chronicle on a California gun issue than ignoring the issue completely and getting no exposure in the media. Every MBA grad has learned that bad media is better than no media at all. I believe that old adage for 99% of all situations. And, if it means NRA getting kudos for work done by CRPA and Calguns, OK, I can live with it as long as we get our gun rights back. I don't care who gets the credit anymore.

To the rest of you, I don't like registrations, waiting periods, or any kind of government document that allows me to keep and bear arms, nor do I need or want their approval. If I, as a law abiding citizen want to carry a concealed firearm for my protection, than I should have that right without government approval or a piece of paper. If they don't want criminals to carry a concealed firearm, then pass a law. Well, that's a stupid statement isn't it.

But, I don't need some knucklehead attorney turned politician, or a politician who's only life experience is working as a government bureaucrat telling me what I can't do providing what I do does not infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise, they should mind their own damn business and get the hell out of our lives and wallets. Carrying a concealed firearm doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone. Criminals have no right to expect a disarmed citizenry and we do not have the obligation to be a victim for some goofy liberal social policy dreamed up Democrats.

And, I don't like most Democrats either. Oh boy, I hear go. They whine too much, break every disagreement down to an emotional event, and in the end, they think the role of everyone else is to support their lifestyle. In the words of Michael Savage, they suffer from a "mental disease" of wanting to be pampered by Mommy and Daddy their entire lives. And, unfortunately, they are the reason we have gun control in this state. Therefore, I have no use for them, their leadership, or their continuous whining about my lifestyle, what I eat, what personal property I own and what they want to remove from my life-works earnings. What I work for is mine, not theirs to take. And I intensely dislike every damn one of them for it.

I'm 56 and I've watched my rights erode longer than maybe some of you have been alive. I'm tired of it all. I have no more patience and I don't care if I hurt someone's feelings along the way anymore. They are what they are, a bunch of socialists who want to control our personal lives right down to our very well being including both our mental and physical health. They need to be removed from office. They are blight on our society and our rights. Gun ownership is just one on a whole list of things they want to meddle in.

If you are a gun owning Dem, tell my why. I haven't figured out how anyone can be pro-gun and a Democrat. They have done NOTHING for us in Sacramento except restrict our rights to gun ownership. I don't see them pushing a pro-gun agenda, with the exception of Senator Rod Wright when he was in the Assembly. Otherwise, the whole lot of them is utterly useless. I guess I got that off my chest.

Ralph

5hundo
03-22-2009, 4:35 AM
I'm 56 and I've watched my rights erode longer than maybe some of you have been alive. I'm tired of it all. I have no more patience and I don't care if I hurt someone's feelings along the way anymore. They are what they are, a bunch of socialists who want to control our personal lives right down to our very well being including both our mental and physical health. They need to be removed from office. They are blight on our society and our rights. Gun ownership is just one on a whole list of things they want to meddle in.

If you are a gun owning Dem, tell my why. I haven't figured out how anyone can be pro-gun and a Democrat. They have done NOTHING for us in Sacramento except restrict our rights to gun ownership. I don't see them pushing a pro-gun agenda, with the exception of Senator Rod Wright when he was in the Assembly. Otherwise, the whole lot of them is utterly useless. I guess I got that off my chest.

Ralph

Well, let's not lump all Democrats into the same nasty category.

There are a lot of Democrats who are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Conversely, there are a lot of Republicans who don't support the 2nd amendment as much as they should. The one Democrat that I most readily am aware of was Charlie Brown, a candidate for congress in the 4th District was a very vocal supporter of gun-owner's rights. I knew his son and was in ROTC with Jeff back in 1998-2001.

http://www.charliebrownforcongress.org/catalog.php?topic=Issues#anchor507

It would be nice to see gun-owning Democrats serve as "the voices of reason" to their party. Gun Control is an infringement upon the Liberty that we are supposed to be guaranteed in this country. The very word "Liberal" alludes to "Liberty", so perhaps they should get back to their roots and let Americans do what they want to with their money, their time and their life.

rweller
03-22-2009, 8:55 AM
Well, let's not lump all Democrats into the same nasty category.

There are a lot of Democrats who are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Conversely, there are a lot of Republicans who don't support the 2nd amendment as much as they should. The one Democrat that I most readily am aware of was Charlie Brown, a candidate for congress in the 4th District was a very vocal supporter of gun-owner's rights. I knew his son and was in ROTC with Jeff back in 1998-2001.

http://www.charliebrownforcongress.org/catalog.php?topic=Issues#anchor507

It would be nice to see gun-owning Democrats serve as "the voices of reason" to their party. Gun Control is an infringement upon the Liberty that we are supposed to be guaranteed in this country. The very word "Liberal" alludes to "Liberty", so perhaps they should get back to their roots and let Americans do what they want to with their money, their time and their life.

I did mention State Senator Rod Wright, who is African-American and represented South Central Los Angeles for years in the Assembly until termed out. Carried several bills for the CRPA over the years and staunchly defended the Second Amendment through his entire tenure in the Assembly. He was honored a few years back as the CRPA legislator of the year. A good man.

However, Bill Lockyer, former legislator, Attorney General and now state Treasurer was also CRPA's legislator of the year some 25 years ago or so, until he decided he wanted statewide visibility and turned on gun owners something fierce. I don't trust Democrats at all. The moment they recognize that pro-gun is a liability for their future political career, they turn against the Second Amendment. Al Gore comes to mind. I can't trust them anymore.

Frankly, I don't know if I can trust Senator Wright if he decides he wants to run for statewide office. The Democratic Party expects their candidates to follow the party platform or they receive no financial support for statewide office. It's rare that a candidate can win without party support from the state.

So, until I see some evidence that the party is changing, I will continue to have absolutely no use for them as a whole. They are the reason we have the strictest gun control measures in the country, and no one can disprove or remotely suggest otherwise. It is what it is.

Ralph

bwiese
03-23-2009, 1:36 PM
Hi Ralph,

Your sentiments above demonstrate why other non-California NRA CA gun orgs have not received much useful traction in Sacramento - because they are then viewed as 'tools of the right-wing Republicans'. This is why the CA NRA staffers can walk into any legislator's office and at least have a conversation, if not traction. I'm hoping we get the New CRPA to that level so we have a double-edged sword - we count on you to help and will help CRPA.

If we, as gunnies, fail to reward ANYONE - regardless of party or any other nongun political stance - who has significantly helped us over multiple terms in the past, then we are essentially irrelevant. We cannot afford the reputation as ones that "pull out early". It devalues our initial support as well: why would a pol help us if can't count on us for "the whole ride"?

Concomitantly, we need to punish those that abuse our trust. Yes, there are folks that turn turtle, we have to be aware and prepare for that. What's more damaging is those that are supposedly on our side that make strategic mistakes for grandstanding purposes, or support one segment of gunnies against another (CAFR's Kathy Lynch's support of handgun rostering, for example, to benefit large sporting retailers).

Yes, the CA Demo party has the taint and sentiment of being antigun. However, that's a broad brush: political attacks need to be precision weapons. The broad-brush approach does not fairly reflect on many individuals such as Wright and quite a few Dems from nonurban/nonexurban areas.

I am a fairly conservative guy and Republican. But I am a gunnie first: this means I would readily support a strong pro-gun Democrat over a weak-gun Republican, esp in certain marginal/swing districts where the gun vote can make a real difference.

And the term limits problem adds urgency and means we have less time to 'educate' a legislator before he's termed out or gets into next office: our "showtime" is now a more limited period where we can assist.

Quite a few on-the-fence legislators have been 'turned' to our cause when an initial vote happily lands on our side - and then they get profuse thanks by mail, fax, email and phone from gunnies. Some of these folks, like Wright, will be moving from Asssembly to Senate offices. We need to remember two things: "All politics is local" and "Politicians remember their friends". These facts mean we can take pro-gun local politicians and maintain pro-gun relevance as they move to higher office.

We also need to remember the CA Republican party - regardless of the fate or condition of the national R party - has fairly well self-destructed, and it finds it even has to work hard to retain 'safe seats'. This leads to many November elections being fairly irrelevant as the real deciding vote was in the primary for the Demo candidate: increasingly, the real left/right split in CA will (as least for the next deacde) be various 'wings' of the CA Dem party as some R safe seats transform into Ds thru either party incompetence or demographic shifts. (I believe the current economy along with large tracts of foreclosed/short-sale homes will turn many areas that were safely "R" into constested or "D" areas with D-voting urbanites moving out to get cheap homes, either rented or bought.)

Many CA R legislators are getting timid and are, at best, a reliable "No" vote on an antigun bill, but will not carry new incremental tactically-useful gun bills. Other CA R legislators seem to want to 'grandstand' on an issue and throw up unpassable 'puff piece' legislation that may well not even get outta committee. Sure, that looks great - and it gets the "unthinking rabid pro-gun vote" - but it is of little use (and often negative, as GOC/Sam Paredes' screw up with lead ammo bill and Jay LaSeur's bad-AW-law drama of a few years ago demonstrate.)

California gun politics also has finesse elements we need to understand and master. Should we excoriate someone because he votes for an antigun bill, but behind the scenes he's helped change wording to neutralize laws? We end up again with a weird situation: a pro-gun lobbyist created a situation where microstamping bill got signed by the Governor but a legislator that perhaps can't vote pro-gun nevertheless helped make microstamping technically/financially/legally unimplementable during rewrites. Should that legislator be tarred & feathered, or perhaps enjoyed as an agent in-place? We have weird friends in weird places, and it doesn't behoove us to burn them. It's as important to get a good bill out of committee as it is to draft a good bill.

Remember that the battle for CA gunrights will be won in the courts and often in combination with accumulations of incremental tactical legislation that - taken individually - is nonoffensive. That single-shot handgun exemption, for example, gave us off-list AR pistols. A Dem gave that to us (the law was proposed by an R but getting it out of committee is where you need friends too.) Accumulations of these small items become strategic. Changing a relatively few words in the CA Penal code can make CA gun law what it was in the early 90s, and perhaps way improved over that.

BTW this is why I'd LOVE to see GunNewsDaily focus only on gun issues (and not other nongun issues like taxes, gov't efficiency, etc.)

BTW#2, Ralph, I'll take CA's gun laws over ILs, NY's or MA's. A traffic stop here with a handgun or rifle, plus or minus taking time to run the numbers, is far less likely to result in any drama than back there. We do not have mandatory registration. Those states also have poor regulatory codes as opposed to our Gov't Admin Code that does help stop underground regulation. CA will improve far more quickly than, say NY.

BigDogatPlay
03-23-2009, 7:12 PM
As has been posted in the thread elsewhere, there is likely little that can be accomplished through the Legislature. Major advances for us will come at the point of litigation resolution. But we can gain things in the legislature if they are played correctly.

The one thing that state and local government seems to fall deeper and deeper in love with each passing year is studies. We know what a legitimate and factual study would prove, across a number of issues.

Having said that, introduce a bill commanding DOJ to study what effect the AWB and magazine restrictions has had on what it was intended to... the suppression of "gun crime". The answer, as we know, is nil, and if it had to be published that it was nil, just as it was (and published) for the federal AWB, so a report in our favor would be another arrow in our quiver down the road.

NICS is a reality. It works. Reduce the DROS waiting period to five days, with a study as to effect in parallel. Remember for a while the handgun period was fifteen days. It was rolled back to ten. Assuming the study finds what we know it will, down the road we could push for cash and carry again on long arms and I'd be willing to settle for five days DROS jail for a handgun.

Reintroduce and get passed the bill that would make a hunter safety certificate a valid HSC exemption. The entire HSC program is nothing but a stealth tax on our rights anyway. This would open up an entire class of people to handgun ownership who might not otherwise take that step.

I like to think that all three of the above are winnable for us in the long run. They are small, incremental steps back along the road we've had to retreat on over the years. We won't get shall issue, or other truly landmark change through the Legislature, Nordyke or not. If the voters would actually vote out the charlatans en masse we might stand a chance, but that isn't going to happen soon.

This brings the second part to mind. At CGF and CRPA gun show booths we need to not only recruit members, we have to register voters. Partner with any group signing up voters and get people registered and get them to join CRPA and / or CGN at the same time. People want to be led, generally speaking. If we don't step out front and lead them, the anti-gun doofi will.

rweller
03-26-2009, 8:13 PM
Hi Ralph,

Your sentiments above demonstrate why other non-California NRA CA gun orgs have not received much useful traction in Sacramento - because they are then viewed as 'tools of the right-wing Republicans'. This is why the CA NRA staffers can walk into any legislator's office and at least have a conversation, if not traction. I'm hoping we get the New CRPA to that level so we have a double-edged sword - we count on you to help and will help CRPA.

If we, as gunnies, fail to reward ANYONE - regardless of party or any other nongun political stance - who has significantly helped us over multiple terms in the past, then we are essentially irrelevant. We cannot afford the reputation as ones that "pull out early". It devalues our initial support as well: why would a pol help us if can't count on us for "the whole ride"?

Concomitantly, we need to punish those that abuse our trust. Yes, there are folks that turn turtle, we have to be aware and prepare for that. What's more damaging is those that are supposedly on our side that make strategic mistakes for grandstanding purposes, or support one segment of gunnies against another (CAFR's Kathy Lynch's support of handgun rostering, for example, to benefit large sporting retailers).

Yes, the CA Demo party has the taint and sentiment of being antigun. However, that's a broad brush: political attacks need to be precision weapons. The broad-brush approach does not fairly reflect on many individuals such as Wright and quite a few Dems from nonurban/nonexurban areas.

I am a fairly conservative guy and Republican. But I am a gunnie first: this means I would readily support a strong pro-gun Democrat over a weak-gun Republican, esp in certain marginal/swing districts where the gun vote can make a real difference.

And the term limits problem adds urgency and means we have less time to 'educate' a legislator before he's termed out or gets into next office: our "showtime" is now a more limited period where we can assist.

Quite a few on-the-fence legislators have been 'turned' to our cause when an initial vote happily lands on our side - and then they get profuse thanks by mail, fax, email and phone from gunnies. Some of these folks, like Wright, will be moving from Asssembly to Senate offices. We need to remember two things: "All politics is local" and "Politicians remember their friends". These facts mean we can take pro-gun local politicians and maintain pro-gun relevance as they move to higher office.

We also need to remember the CA Republican party - regardless of the fate or condition of the national R party - has fairly well self-destructed, and it finds it even has to work hard to retain 'safe seats'. This leads to many November elections being fairly irrelevant as the real deciding vote was in the primary for the Demo candidate: increasingly, the real left/right split in CA will (as least for the next deacde) be various 'wings' of the CA Dem party as some R safe seats transform into Ds thru either party incompetence or demographic shifts. (I believe the current economy along with large tracts of foreclosed/short-sale homes will turn many areas that were safely "R" into constested or "D" areas with D-voting urbanites moving out to get cheap homes, either rented or bought.)

Many CA R legislators are getting timid and are, at best, a reliable "No" vote on an antigun bill, but will not carry new incremental tactically-useful gun bills. Other CA R legislators seem to want to 'grandstand' on an issue and throw up unpassable 'puff piece' legislation that may well not even get outta committee. Sure, that looks great - and it gets the "unthinking rabid pro-gun vote" - but it is of little use (and often negative, as GOC/Sam Paredes' screw up with lead ammo bill and Jay LaSeur's bad-AW-law drama of a few years ago demonstrate.)

California gun politics also has finesse elements we need to understand and master. Should we excoriate someone because he votes for an antigun bill, but behind the scenes he's helped change wording to neutralize laws? We end up again with a weird situation: a pro-gun lobbyist created a situation where microstamping bill got signed by the Governor but a legislator that perhaps can't vote pro-gun nevertheless helped make microstamping technically/financially/legally unimplementable during rewrites. Should that legislator be tarred & feathered, or perhaps enjoyed as an agent in-place? We have weird friends in weird places, and it doesn't behoove us to burn them. It's as important to get a good bill out of committee as it is to draft a good bill.

Remember that the battle for CA gunrights will be won in the courts and often in combination with accumulations of incremental tactical legislation that - taken individually - is nonoffensive. That single-shot handgun exemption, for example, gave us off-list AR pistols. A Dem gave that to us (the law was proposed by an R but getting it out of committee is where you need friends too.) Accumulations of these small items become strategic. Changing a relatively few words in the CA Penal code can make CA gun law what it was in the early 90s, and perhaps way improved over that.

BTW this is why I'd LOVE to see GunNewsDaily focus only on gun issues (and not other nongun issues like taxes, gov't efficiency, etc.)

BTW#2, Ralph, I'll take CA's gun laws over ILs, NY's or MA's. A traffic stop here with a handgun or rifle, plus or minus taking time to run the numbers, is far less likely to result in any drama than back there. We do not have mandatory registration. Those states also have poor regulatory codes as opposed to our Gov't Admin Code that does help stop underground regulation. CA will improve far more quickly than, say NY.

Bill,

You make a lot of great points and frankly your perspective is valid. However, I have lost my patience. And, I will reiterate my point. The reason we have all this gun control is because of Democrats, not Republicans. If the Republicans hadn't screwed themselves when they gained control back 15 years ago or so in California, we would be in a lot better shape.

I am grateful to those Dems that have stuck with us. There are a few in the interior that understand who they represent, and sometimes in the thicker air along the coast. Denise Ducheny comes to mind, who at least "no voted" on several key bills over the years that helped us. And, there are those that are historically anti-gun, that are willing to correct madness and straighten out obvious dumbness.

The CRPA has been fortunate to hook up over the years with Rod Wright. He really has done us some favors, despite the (D) after his name, but again, these guys are like picking up jello. You think you have them, then they slip away. I hope that is not the case with Senator Wright. I really have a lot of respect for the man and the position he has taken on Second Amendment rights.

As for GunNewsDaily.com, it is sometimes hard to come up with enough articles each morning to make it an interesting read, especially when the legislature here is out of session. Lately it's been a little more active, unfortunately. However, using the editorial power I have bestowed upon myself, I sometimes throw some articles in there that are typical examples of political stupidity. It is tough finding the time to do extensive research, write, and find people willing to contribute to Gun News Daily. I wouldn't mind people contributing commentary or articles, but I really don't have the time to edit, so I need print ready articles. I have enough of a time trying to put coherent commentaries myself. So, if you or anyone else would like to contribute, please feel free to send me your fully edited copy to rweller49@yahoo.com

Since I've been doing this, I have gained an enormous amount of respect for journalists who can precisely encapsulate their thoughts into few words. Krauthammer and George Will come to mind. They are, regardless of some of their ideas, geniuses with the keyboard. I only wish I had a small fraction of their talent. It's a struggle for me.

I guess I can live with California over NY, NJ and some other states. I agree. But in some respects we do have it tougher. I guess it depends on how you weight one right lost vs. another and how important it is on each of our lists. I do kind of lump Illinois, Maryland, NY, Mass and NJ all into one big bowl of anti-gun nonsense with California included. That's odd, I guess most if not all of them are controlled by Democrats. Gosh, there I go again, generalizing that all Democratically controlled states are rabidly anti-gun.

Bill, have we met? Please accept my apologies for not remembering where or when. Along with 57 years of gun control, my mind is not as sharp as it once was. But, I think we may have met, or communicated in the past prior to me becoming a little more regular on Calguns.

Ralph

bwiese
03-26-2009, 9:46 PM
Bill, have we met? Please accept my apologies for not remembering where or when. Along with 57 years of gun control, my mind is not as sharp as it once was. But, I think we may have met, or communicated in the past prior to me becoming a little more regular on Calguns.

Ralph,

We extremely briefly met at the CRPA board meeting/dinner but you were overwhelmed with a dozen other folks talking to you, and then I didn't have a chance to bend your ear later. I'm sure we'll connect soon.

(I was the tall dude that came down w/Gene Hoffman and was seated in back with Ed Worley & Paul making sure the coffee was being adequately disposed of.)

That was a helluva nice dinner gathering BTW but methinks it'll never be on Valentine's Day again ;)

rweller
03-27-2009, 5:11 AM
Bill,

That's where it was. I couldn't put the name to the face. I'm sorry we didn't get to talk.

The dinner was pretty good this year. Even the food was somewhat better than in past years, and the entertainment was purely all-American.

That wasn't the first time it ended up on Valentine weekend but it the past it seemed no one wanted to listen to the complaints. John said it will be the last time we do that.

Hopefully the board meeting wasn't too boring. We try to spice those things up with a little discussion now and then on rules and regulations. We just can't help ourselves sometimes.

Fairly broad array of people on the board. From ultra-conservative take no chances types to fairly wild, take no prisoners personalities. It has shifted over the past few years from a very staid and stuffy conservative organization to one willing to take and make more opportunities. It should have started the shift 10 or 15 years ago, maybe longer. It has always been known as a shooter's organization, basically run by competitive shooters and hunters. People like me were considered a different breed. They didn't quite know what do with the gun-owning activist types and, as a result, a number of them came and went over the years, but very few stuck. It's far more balanced today, and surprisingly a few of the stalwarts in the group are swinging more to the activists side as well on different directions.

I do have high hopes for the CRPA. They've done good things over the years. And like any pro-gun organization they get maligned for the right things and excoriated when the bad things that happen. You can't win in this business sometimes. But, part of it was our own doing. Having been with the org either as a part time employee of CRPA or on the board for over ten years, I've seen it from the inside looking out. They have always stayed under the radar, not seeking publicity, very careful about the image they present because they didn't want to anger some of their very conservative shooter type members. But, at the same time the lie-low position hurt them in membership and gave people the impression they weren't doing anything.

I can't tell you how many times we have been involved in local litigation at the city/county level, only to see the newspaper crediting the NRA for the litigation. It seemed very few cared within the organization that we didn't get credit where credit was due. People really didn't know what we were doing, if anything. And, frankly there were more things we could have done and didn't. But that's water under the bridge.

Oh well. We'll talk soon Bill.

Ralph

phil conrad
03-29-2009, 7:56 PM
1. Get rid of the "Safe Handgun" list. I know about the nerfs, but that list just needs to die.

2. Shall issue CCW

3. Repeal of the AW law.

I agree 100%

ArticleTheFourth
05-01-2009, 1:38 PM
1. Shall issue

2. Safe list

3. AWB

Put us on equal footing with America.

Not much of an expert, but I agree with this priority list.

:thumbsup:

MrSigmaDOT40
05-05-2009, 4:38 AM
Just checkin,'.....Now that the budget mess is over in Sacto, at least for now, what do you feel should be the top 3 legislative priorities for CRPA and its allies?? If it's realistic or plausible is insignificant. Lets pretend it's a perfect world.......We need a starting point.........Thanks for your input!!

How about trying to compromise (for now) on the 10 day wait period?

I was thinking as others have said.... It could be a 10 day wait for FIRST TIME Firearms Buyers, where only "Current" legal possessors of same types of Firearms being purchased are exempt. (i.e you own any Handgun= No Wait for Handgun / You Own a Long Gun= No Wait for Long Guns)

It is pretty ridiculous for somebody with a legally owned working Firearm to have to wait 10 days to receive another one. Part of the deal of course would be that a person has to bring and show the dealer they have a legal working handgun/long gun which ever is being purchased.

How can they argue with that??

Leave the 1 handgun a month thing alone for now just get current firearms owners out of the 10 day wait (FOR NOW). That would be a huge step forward.

Midian
05-05-2009, 5:48 AM
How about if all CA gun owners refused to pay state income or auto registration taxes until we were bloody heard?

That's a huge dip in money to illegal aliens, that'd make a dent real fast.