PDA

View Full Version : So, who *IS* NRA in California?


mikehaas
03-19-2006, 5:47 AM
For those that haven't, I thought CalGuns.net folks would like to meet the 2 top NRA staff persons in California. California is the only state to have it's own set of NRA office(s), it's own unique grassroots network (the Members' Councils) and these 2 guys! BTW, you would not believe how much these guys travel, often by car, up & down this state as they manage attorneys, volunteers and bills from their Blackberries.

http://calnra.com/graf/ed-portrait80.jpg
Ed Worley
Ed is our NRA-ILA State Liaison for California. (Most folks call him our lobbyist :-) Ed is amazing in his ability to lay out issues regarding gun control, manage facts and relationships between them, etc. I can't tell you how many times I've seen NRA leaders visit the state and in the middle of a meeting, turn to Ed and ask him to "lay out the landscape". In the next few minutes, the requester sure to receive a comprehensive rundown on all the bills and the major players involved (be they legislators, anti or pro-gun organizations, sheriffs, DOJ personnel, u name it). The man knows his stuff like no one else.

Ed is the guy that walks the halls of Sacramento, taking advantage of the special access his status as lobbyist affords. He is welcome in EVERY legislative office and works well with others. Why? It's because Ed has adopted a strict policy that works well when interfacing with legislators and their staff - never lie. Whether it's a pro- or anti- legislator, Ed is highly respected in Sacramento and even convinces Democrats to support our cause. Ed's personal skills, enthusiasm and his dedication to our cause are always evident and he loves the help of volunteers. We've had to drag Ed out of Members' Council meetings because he just will not stop taking and answering questions!

Every year, on the last day of the session, when the legislators have stopped the clock just before midnight (when they are supposed to stop BY LAW) so they can continue trying to get their pet projects passed well into the AM... when those exhausted lawmakers drag their sorry XXXes of of the chambers, ED IS ALWAYS THERE, SAYING GOODBYE TO THEM. (all other gun lobbyists are sure to have packed it in by then.) He makes sure they always know that NRA is always there.

Ed is an officer of the Folsom Shooting Club and is a frequent long-range competitor. He is also a Law
Enforcement instructor and assists agencies with tactical training. In the 80's, his background was in banking. Ed could pick and choose his career and salary, yet he sticks with us, fighting the good fight.

http://calnra.com/gfx/paul1.jpg
Paul Payne
Paul is a founder of the Members' Councils program, a former ILA Director of Grassroots and currently serves as the Liaison to the Executive Vice-President (that's Wayne LaPierre). Paul was originally a volunteer in California for many years and so impressed the ILA Director that he was hired by ILA and transferred to Fairfax. Back then, the Members' Councils (the group Paul helped found) operated under ILA, but ILA wanted to reorganize their grassroots program nationally as the EVC program, something that is very different. Wayne decided the California Members' Council network was too valuable to change, so he personally adopted our group under his wing and assigned Paul as Program Administrator. This new assignment meant he had to leave the land of "own-and-shoot-anything-u-want" and return to the beleaguered Golden State for a full-time position. Fully knowedgable of the consequences to his personal life, he accepted the position with gusto.

The man is so driven, I've been worried for his health at times. I've seen Paul work while sick to the point he had to lay down for several minutes several times throughout the day, yet he would not slow down (while volunteers pleaded with him to). I've seen him drive from Southern California to the SF Bay Area, then to Modesto, then to Sonoma, then return back home to Riverside - all in a few days. Why? Because his Members Councils volunteers asked for his help. In truth, I don't know anyone who works as hard, period. Despite his top management position, Paul will work volunteer tables for long hours on his own time - Here's an example. (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/greatwestern/) (BTW, the volunteer mentioned there as traveling from "as far away as Contra Costa County" is ME :-) Paul eats, sleeps and breathes NRA and nobody is better with volunteers.

Paul's loves are .45 Autos and his most recent aquisition (that I know of) - his Shiloh Sharps "Quigley" in .45-110. Dang is he didn't convince me (and a bunch of others) to also buy Quigleys. I love mine.

These two guys are instrumental to gun-rights in California. They are a great team and just as important, good friends. I shudder to think where gun-rights would be in California today, were it not for these 2 individuals. We owe much to them, more than most could ever know.

Want to meet them? No problem. Join your local Members Council (http://calnra.com/volunteer/) and ask your local MC leaders to invite them. I assure you they will adjust their schedules (if necessary and possible) to attend a Members' Council meeting. Go ahead, I bet Ed outlasts your questions! :-)

Mike

mikehaas
03-19-2006, 6:24 AM
I wanted to also thank California's Board Members,
Bill Bauer (http://nrawinningteam.com/bios00/bauer.html)
Manny Fernandez (http://nrawinningteam.com/bios00/fernandez.html)
Joel Friedman (http://nrawinningteam.com/bios01/friedman.html)
Tom Gaines (http://nrawinningteam.com/bios00/gaines.html)
John Milius (http://nrawinningteam.com/milius.html)

California is a tough nut to crack, folks. We have great people fighting the fight (you and I included), and we simply must keep supporting each other. The Second Amendment and the generations of Americans that follow deserve nothing less.

Mike

stator
03-19-2006, 7:41 AM
Ed Worley Performance Evaluation (PE):

1999- F
2000- F
2001- F
2002- D
2003- D
2004- F
2005- D


Welcome to the real world like the rest of us. When restricted gun laws get on the books, Ed's PE goes down. When restricted gun laws get off the books, Ed's PE goes up. His sucks big time right now. Most of us that had his trend line would have lost our jobs long ago.

Working hard does not matter to any of my past or present employers, ONLY RESULTS.

Brass Balls
03-19-2006, 8:12 AM
Interesting post Mike. Do you have any recommendations for candidates on the current ballot I just received in my NRA magazine?

mikehaas
03-19-2006, 9:08 AM
Thanks for asking. Please see http://nrawinningteam.com/

I've been a member of the Nominating Committee once (1998) and know the work is tough with only 25 open slots and many excellent candidates.

Mike

Supernam
03-20-2006, 1:34 PM
Ed Worley Performance Evaluation (PE):

1999- F
2000- F
2001- F
2002- D
2003- D
2004- F
2005- D


Welcome to the real world like the rest of us. When restricted gun laws get on the books, Ed's PE goes down. When restricted gun laws get off the books, Ed's PE goes up. His sucks big time right now. Most of us that had his trend line would have lost our jobs long ago.

Working hard does not matter to any of my past or present employers, ONLY RESULTS.

Wrong. When the performance of Californian voters goes down, his ratings go down. We shouldn't allow one or two men bare the burden of an entire state of gun enthusiasts, while blaming them for our problems. He works the hardest and gets the worst grades, while we work the least and pat themselves on the back for being "PC lobbyists". Hmmm, interesting. So wouldn't you agree that HIS grades, actually reflect OUR performance as a group?

jnojr
03-20-2006, 4:05 PM
Wrong. When the performance of Californian voters goes down, his ratings go down.

Wrong... California voters have nothing to do with it, thanks to our current gerrymandered system (which I cannot recall the NRA coming out against when we had a chance to pass Prop 77)

We shouldn't allow one or two men bare the burden of an entire state of gun enthusiasts, while blaming them for our problems. He works the hardest and gets the worst grades, while we work the least and pat themselves on the back for being "PC lobbyists".

Very true. But this is also why I say the NRA is fighting the last century's warfare in Sacramento... it doesn't matter how hard Ed Worley or 10,000 other lobbyists work. The system is rigged. The antis will win, every time. The best we can ever hope to accomplish under the current rules is a slight delay.

There are three ways to fix the gun law problems in California:

1) RKBA initiative (voted on by the people, not the corrupt Legislature)

2) Fix the Legislature (Prop 77, fought tooth-and-nail by existing special interests and politicians)

3) A 9.0 earthquake that liquefies the Bay Area. Sorry... look at a political map. That's where the most blue is concentrated, and that's where far too many Legislative districts are carefully set up with slight Democrat majorities and a very few with overwhelming Republican majorities.

The NRA isn't interested in the first two, and I doubt can pull off the third. The result is that we keep getting what we've been getting for 40+ years... a gradual, unending erosion of our rights.

6172crew
03-20-2006, 4:15 PM
Thanks for the post Mike.:) Do you know if Ed has a letter into the DOJ asking them if our lowers are legal to build w/ a convertion kit?

Ed said he would use his lawyer to write up a letter and get the go ahead to use these kits Im just not sure if a kits was ever set.

Semper Fidelis
Chris

AntiBubba 2.1
03-20-2006, 7:59 PM
Thanks for the Cal NRA link, Mike; I've put in my information.

As someone who intends to work toward the RKBA initiative in 2008, I'm
quite eager to find out what it will take for the NRA to get behind it.

trinity9
03-23-2006, 7:10 PM
As someone who intends to work toward the RKBA initiative in 2008, I'm
quite eager to find out what it will take for the NRA to get behind it.

+1

This is key. As an NRA member, it seems to me that they are entirely too passive in the PRK. Why would the NRA not back an initiative? Sounds like an opportunity to end run around all the hacks.

Can'thavenuthingood
03-23-2006, 7:49 PM
I think its best the RKBA initiative is kept as a separate non partisan (hate that word) campaign. The most I would want the NRA to do is to insert a simple message of support. Same is true for redistricting, a simple note of support to alert the membership to vote for these items.

Seems as though any long term strategy would include redistricting (Prop 77) regardless of how "one issue" focused the NRA may be. My Rep. Nicole Parra says she is pro gun, but she is a democrat, which adds to the numbers in the Assemblies majority. She might vote "No" to please me on occasion but it matters not. I think they take turns.

They have us painted into a corner.

Stockholm syndrome.

Vick

mechandy
03-23-2006, 8:03 PM
Mike you are probably one heck of a nice guy.
The fact that you volunteer your time valuable time for what you feel is right speaks for itself and I commend you.
Mike as a CA resident have you considered that you are following a group that does not have your best interest at heart?
stator made a very good point.
That performance evaluation is awfull isn't it?
For me untill the NRA takes an offensive tactic instead of a meanial losing defensive tactic when it comes to CA while taking our money I will continue to slam and expose them for it every chance I get.
I feel unless we speak and act out they will continue to do the same lame dance.
Why don't I see or hear any 30 second commercials promoting what fun it is to take the kids to the range or advertising where some safety/traing classes are being held?
I can't count how many times I've heard one from the left say they'd like to take their kid to a range but don't know how.
It can't be "rocket science" can it?

mikehaas
03-24-2006, 5:27 AM
+1

This is key. As an NRA member, it seems to me that they are entirely too passive in the PRK. Why would the NRA not back an initiative?

I had previously discussed that NRA leaders came to California in 2000 and held 2 large strategy meetings (300-400 members each, both went on 4 hours+), one North and one South and addressed many topics - including why they weren't supporting the RKBA Initiative that year (it's first appearance). They took questions - even Kilmer and Metcalf were even in the audience. One would think the RKBA Initiative leaders would let folks know those anwers if their supporters being informed were important. NRA has answered the question already, folks (at least in 2000, I suspect the factors remain the same) and injected something new and valuable into the debate - reality. It's unfortunate it was largely ignored by the RKBA initiative bosses.

My focus is "we're all in the same boat", and I didn't want to stir up bad feeling with calguns RKBA supporters, so when asked "What did they say?", I was hesitant to post the content. But after some coaxing by other members (I'm new around here!), I recalled it from memory and posted what I believe was the crux. See
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=241767

My only personal addendum to that report was that last I checked, NRA was only a $250 million/year corporation.

Mike

mikehaas
03-24-2006, 7:05 AM
As an NRA member, it seems to me that they are entirely too passive in the PRK.

I'm sorry, I meant to address this comment too. I've been on this forum maybe a month now and have seen it perhaps more than any other. It's the big banana, isn't it? WHERE IS NRA IN ALL THIS SH--?

The short answer = "NRA is here, and it's us."

I guess as a volunteer, it's tough to get any more inside. I've been invited into closed meetings where top NRA brass (you know their names 'cause you can't get any more 'top') discussed California in very real terms, millions of dollars terms, in-the-box-with-Illinois-New York-Hawaii-etc terms. Folks, I'm pretty well over the half-century mark and have made a fool of myself often enough. It's taken way too long to figure out the correleation between doing that and having my mouth open. Luckily, I had learned the lesson well enough to largely open the ears instead during such meetings. (Yet, here I am, with my mouth open...)

NRA is here, and they are doing it all - professionally and effectively. You really should be proud of your association - Eddie Eagle, Women's Programs, etc etc ON TOP of fighting an intense legislative battle (and making real headway winning incremental victories and lawmaker support). I'm constantly staggered by the immensity of the tasks this single-issue organization undertakes. 76 board members - I believe over 200 committes. And that doesn't begin to include staff.

What am I doing there? I constantly ask myself that. As a volunteer, I'm pretty unaccountable, yet they seem to want me around, and others like me. I think it has to do with being both productive and loyal. I can attest that with volunteers as well as lawmakers, both are prized commodities.

Truth is, they need all the help they can get. We need (and all should want) NRA to have an army on the ground. And there are real opportunities to become a leader to others in your area here, folks. I think moreso here then the other problem states, because we are the only ones with Members' Councils and every one has officers, committees, etc. NRA may align themselves with activists networks in other states, but we are the only one that is NRA's own. Let's give 'em a great one!

No, I don't think you'll see NRA forced into legislative and political action that originates from outside groups or individuals or is non-gun related. Or taking big chances with huge sums of money. As an NRA member, you wouldn't WANT that, would you? The do consider everything that comes along, it just that what sounds like a great idea to someone with limited politcal experience often falls apart when examined under the hard scrutiny of "the big picture". And believe me, these guys are the best at seeing that picture. They better be - the decisions they make really matter.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I'll make the case all day that NRA is here in a BIG way. But at some point the question could become "where are you?" Are you stuck in a "magic pill" mentality and worse, critisizing others when one isn't found? Are you willing to put in real effort toward the defense of the Second Amendment? Can you forget about yourself and really focus on what is needed to advance the cause, even if it takes years? We need an army on the ground, and armies take soldiers. Soldiering is not an easy job. And we need leaders, which, if done right, is even tougher.

In an earlier post, someone said that NRA should be judged by the results in CA, not by how hard they are working. At some point, the degree of difficulty of the task at hand has to figure in. When that task is very difficult, your team needs even more support if you're ever going to get anywhere.

it's easy to critisize. I invite all to find out just how difficult it can be sometime to really work within a team and build:
http://calnra.com/volunteer/

Mike

Talkin2u2
03-24-2006, 9:39 AM
==snip== Truth is, they need all the help they can get. We need (and all should want) NRA to have an army on the ground. And there are real opportunities to become a leader to others in your area here, folks. I think moreso here then the other problem states, because we are the only ones with Members' Councils and every one has officers, committees, etc. NRA may align themselves with activists networks in other states, but we are the only one that is NRA's own. Let's give 'em a great one!

No, I don't think you'll see NRA forced into legislative and political action that originates from outside groups or individuals or is non-gun related. Or taking big chances with huge sums of money. As an NRA member, you wouldn't WANT that, would you? The do consider everything that comes along, it just that what sounds like a great idea to someone with limited politcal experience often falls apart when examined under the hard scrutiny of "the big picture". And believe me, these guys are the best at seeing that picture. They better be - the decisions they make really matter.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I'll make the case all day that NRA is here in a BIG way. But at some point the question could become "where are you?" Are you stuck in a "magic pill" mentality and worse, critisizing others when one isn't found? Are you willing to put in real effort toward the defense of the Second Amendment? Can you forget about yourself and really focus on what is needed to advance the cause, even if it takes years? We need an army on the ground, and armies take soldiers. Soldiering is not an easy job. And we need leaders, which, if done right, is even tougher.

In an earlier post, someone said that NRA should be judged by the results in CA, not by how hard they are working. At some point, the degree of difficulty of the task at hand has to figure in. When that task is very difficult, your team needs even more support if you're ever going to get anywhere.

it's easy to critisize. I invite all to find out just how difficult it can be sometime to really work within a team and build:
http://calnra.com/volunteer/

Mike

Mike Haas, you are right on with your assessment of the political situation within the NRA and within California.

I have been in this business, (and from a political consultant's point of view, that's what it is.... a "business") for a long time and have seen a lot. Many so called "good ideas" have come and gone. And it seems like most of the time, proponents of those "good ideas" are unwilling to actually do the toughest work in politics, be objective.

Unlike you, Mike, I am not connected directly to the "top" of the NRA. But, I don't need to be, to make an educated assessment of why the NRA would not commit the tens of millions of dollars (minimum) necessary to adequately promote an initiative in this state. Notice I did not say "win" the initiative, because I believe very few seasoned veterans of politics would give such an effort much chance of winning. And if it didn't win, the Second Amendment, as a political issue in California, would effectively be dead because of the general perception that "the people have spoken" on the issue.

If it did win, no doubt it would be in court within a day or so, probably a court in San Francisco. So it would be delayed for several years at a minimum.

Who would pay for such an initiative, and the possible legal bills? The NRA? Other groups? The proponents of the initiative? Realistically, who has the money to finance such an effort? We're probably talking about well over one hundred million dollars and all of us together (including the NRA and other groups) cannot come up with that kind of money.

But the cold hard fact is I believe this initiative can't win in California. Look at the voter demographics. Democrats far out number Republicans and even the Republicans aren't that fond of guns, or the gun issue that they'de risk their political fates on this initiative.

Recently, I've asked around to some of the top consulting, advertising, fundraising, and polling firms that work in California, and nobody seems to know of this group promoting the initiative. Iím not casting aspersions, but if they have not raised money (a lot of it = $10s of millions), hired consulting, advertising, fundraising, and polling firms, how can they run a viable campaign against their opponents who definitely will? How do they know where they stand with likely voters with no polling data? Advertising buys (tv, radio, print, etc.) must be made well in advance, in order to lock up the prime exposure slots. If they don't have a consultant, who will handle the mass mail campaign? What about the absentee ballot campaign? Many people are shocked with the cost of television time in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento. All of these venues are absolutely necessary, and a large quantity of votes must be won in these areas if you want to have a chance to win the state.

None of us like, or want to get more, letters from gun groups (such as NRA) asking for money. But, to promote such an initiative we would all get lots more of them. And we would need to contribute very heavily. Some people will say, "If everyone gives $x.......then......" I wish it worked that way. It doesn't. If someone has a donor list that produces a return from five percent of their solicited names, it is almost magic. Usually, it is much lower. So the rest of us would have to make up the difference.

No, experience has taught me the tough lesson of the realities of politics. The NRA has the only really effective political machine, related to gun issues, in California. And their volunteer program and strategy in Sacramento is first rate. Most politicians, on both sides of the gun issue, respect them and several fear them, since most politicians don't want to be on the bad side of the NRA.

I realize that some people will be critical of my message and my support and respect for the NRA. My thoughts are simply my opinions based on my experiences. But I challange you to ask yourself if it is not easier for you to stand back and attack the NRA and it's efforts (which you can no doubt rationalize to be lacking or deficient in some way) than it is for you to commit to becoming involved with their efforts and becoming a "soldier." Because, like Mike Haas said, "Soldiering is not an easy job."

Thank you for considering my opinions. I realize I am new here and I appreciate this forum very much.

Can'thavenuthingood
03-24-2006, 10:56 AM
Nothing is going to change until successful redistricting is accomplished. In the meantime, those in the "Business" will continue in the "Business".

Of course thats just my opinion.

Vick

Mesa Tactical
03-24-2006, 12:46 PM
[hearsay snipped]

Edit: I am on the phone with Paul Payne. He clarified that he has not been with NRA-ILA for some years; he is actually with HQ, though based in California. He gave me an explanation for the issues I had originally mentioned, and in any case insisted it was mostly or entirely hearsay. As I am much less acquainted with the facts than he is, I honored his request to delete the original post.

Actually, it seems we have a lot in common.

Can'thavenuthingood
03-24-2006, 3:07 PM
Well that's certainly interesting politics.

Why would you kick a council out of the NRA?

Who's in charge?
What's the hierarchy? or chain of command?

Which positions are paid?
Which positions are receiving benefits like per diem, travel costs, etc.

Is this akin to a Union administration with real rank and file members and business agents that put on a song and dance?

One issue voting huh?

Hmmmmm

Vick

Paladin
04-01-2006, 2:29 PM
First off, thanks Mike for the intro & background info for Paul & Ed. I look forward to talking w/them sometime in the future.

There are three ways to fix the gun law problems in California:

1) RKBA initiative (voted on by the people, not the corrupt Legislature).

One point of correction: RKBA is an amendment to the state's constitution, therefore, whether put on the ballot by the legislature or by the people (thru gathering sufficient signatures), it must be passed by the voters (see Art 18, Sec 1 & 4 of the state con). Going thru the legislature just lets them draft it and saves the time and money of signature gathering. After that, it would be the same huge, expensive, and vicious fight.

Phantom_Piney
04-02-2006, 3:06 PM
Simply members such as myself that are NRA members in the state of California. :)

tcrpe
04-02-2006, 8:29 PM
[QUOTE=Paladin]Going thru the legislature just lets them draft it and saves the time and money of signature gathering. QUOTE]

If we had left most of the constructive ballot initiatives to the legislature, those things would never have been done.

The career politicians, and their clones, hate the citizen initiative, and are always looking for ways to kill it. (See Prop 187. Heck, how many years has Prop 13 been under attack?)

I pay my dues to the NRA, and frankly, get nothing in return except NRA payroll dead wood that pulls those D anf F grades. Talk about a good-old-boys network, they impress me as no better than the California Legislature.

Maybe it's time to quit paying them . . . . .

OK, I feel better now.

jnojr
04-02-2006, 9:05 PM
[QUOTE=Paladin]I pay my dues to the NRA, and frankly, get nothing in return except NRA payroll dead wood that pulls those D anf F grades. Talk about a good-old-boys network, they impress me as no better than the California Legislature.

Maybe it's time to quit paying them . . . . .

I don't believe that the NRA people here are stupid or corrupt. I believe that the NRA has "their own way of doing things". It works in plenty of other states, but it doesn't work here. I think they're just too hidebound to recognize that.

I don't see any point in slamming the NRA. They're doing a fantastic job at the Federal level, and in most states. As for quitting paying them... I agree. I'd rather send my money to a group that's dedicated to and focused on California.

Mesa Tactical
04-03-2006, 7:35 AM
As for quitting paying them... I agree. I'd rather send my money to a group that's dedicated to and focused on California.

Wow. Is $35 a year so much that you folks can't afford NRA dues and CRPA dues?

For $35 a year the NRA sends you a monthly magazine. How much are you paying for Guns & Ammo?

jnojr
04-03-2006, 12:21 PM
Wow. Is $35 a year so much that you folks can't afford NRA dues and CRPA dues?

For $35 a year the NRA sends you a monthly magazine. How much are you paying for Guns & Ammo?

What does getting a magazine do to help my rights?

And why shouldn't I send my $35 somewhere that will use it to defend my rights, not the rights of the rest of the nation?

Just think... if every California member of the NRA (and CRPA) took their money and spent it with a group dedicated to California, we'd start making some serious inroads. CA has a little more than 10% of the nations population, so it's a fair guess that we have about the same percentage of NRA members. 400,000 X $35 = $14,000,000 per year. Yeah, we'd start to see a change or two... :)

Paladin
04-03-2006, 12:46 PM
[QUOTE=Paladin]Going thru the legislature just lets them draft it and saves the time and money of signature gathering. QUOTE]

If we had left most of the constructive ballot initiatives to the legislature, those things would never have been done.

The career politicians, and their clones, hate the citizen initiative, and are always looking for ways to kill it. (See Prop 187. Heck, how many years has Prop 13 been under attack?)

I pay my dues to the NRA, and frankly, get nothing in return except NRA payroll dead wood that pulls those D anf F grades. Talk about a good-old-boys network, they impress me as no better than the California Legislature.

Maybe it's time to quit paying them . . . . .

OK, I feel better now.

I feel I have to step in here to clarify a few things.

First off, I posted what I did to point out that you cannot pass a CA state constitutional amendment legislatively. You can get it on to the ballot that way, as opposed to by signature gathering, but either way it must be passed by the voters. You cannot expect or wait for Sacto to pass RKBA -- even if they wanted to, they can't. I was not taking a stance on the initiative process per se.

Second off, because tcrpe did not close my quote, jnojr's quote of tcrpe puts tcrpe's words in my mouth. I support the NRA and the work they do around the nation and think Kalis should support them (and/or GOC). I've talked w/GOC leadership a couple of times and my conclusion is that they're both doing the best w/what we've given them to work with. We need to get all our pro-gun friends to support one or both of them and/or at least get on CGN's "Gun rights, political, and legal" forum regularly (5 min a day) to know what action to take when it's needed (I'm working on a separate thread about this for posting later this week.)

Last, there is a move to "reform" the initiative process. My guess is that the politicians don't like that a statutory initiative (a law passed by the voters passing a proposition) cannot be overturned by a Sacto legislative statute, but only by another statutory initiative passed by the voters. This is the only reason Prop 13 is still in effect. This power of statutory initiatives became a major issue last year when Sacto tried to pass a Gay marriage law. A Kali Appeals Court said Prop 22, which defined marriage as hetero, could only be overturned by another Prop passing. (The fear on the Right now is that liberal CA SC justices will declare Prop 22 violates the state unconstitution, so they are now pushing for a Hetero marriage CA Con Amendment.)

Mesa Tactical
04-03-2006, 12:52 PM
What does getting a magazine do to help my rights?

Nothing. But $35 a pretty good value for a monthly magazine.

That your rights are being defended as well is gravy.

BTW, as others have posted here, that $35 per year is the bare minimum in gun rights defense. The power of the NRA is in its active membership and volunteers (I was a volunteer for a number of years). If I may mangle (NRA member) JFK's inagural address a bit, "Ask not what the NRA can do for you; ask what you can do for the NRA."

If folks aren't interested in actively defending their gun rights, that's a personal decision. But it's a little hard to believe that $35 per year is too much for the bare minimum participation, especially for folks in California (who usually have more disposable income than most NRA members). A decent restaurant meal for two costs more than $35, plus wine.

BTW II, as anyone who knows me personally can attest, I am a noisy critic of the NRA. But there remains no question in my mind the membership is getting good value for $35 per year.

tcrpe
04-03-2006, 3:09 PM
[QUOTE=tcrpe]

I feel I have to step in here to clarify a few things.

First off, I posted what I did to point out that you cannot pass a CA state constitutional amendment legislatively. You can get it on to the ballot that way, as opposed to by signature gathering, but either way it must be passed by the voters. You cannot expect or wait for Sacto to pass RKBA -- even if they wanted to, they can't. I was not taking a stance on the initiative process per se.

Second off, because tcrpe did not close my quote, jnojr's quote of tcrpe puts tcrpe's words in my mouth. I support the NRA and the work they do around the nation and think Kalis should support them (and/or GOC). I've talked w/GOC leadership a couple of times and my conclusion is that they're both doing the best w/what we've given them to work with. We need to get all our pro-gun friends to support one or both of them and/or at least get on CGN's "Gun rights, political, and legal" forum regularly (5 min a day) to know what action to take when it's needed (I'm working on a separate thread about this for posting later this week.)

Last, there is a move to "reform" the initiative process. My guess is that the politicians don't like that a statutory initiative (a law passed by the voters passing a proposition) cannot be overturned by a Sacto legislative statute, but only by another statutory initiative passed by the voters. This is the only reason Prop 13 is still in effect. This power of statutory initiatives became a major issue last year when Sacto tried to pass a Gay marriage law. A Kali Appeals Court said Prop 22, which defined marriage as hetero, could only be overturned by another Prop passing. (The fear on the Right now is that liberal CA SC justices will declare Prop 22 violates the state unconstitution, so they are now pushing for a Hetero marriage CA Con Amendment.)


I agree . . . .

But let me add that my apparent ineptitude at handling quoted material was not deliberate.

When the voters want something constructive done, they have to do it themselves.

(Now seeing this post in it's final form, and seeing the attribute to me that should be to paladin, I shake my head and mutter WTF. I will refrain from trying to use quoted material.))