PDA

View Full Version : Is NRA our Best Bet for the 'off-list'?


dhl
05-14-2006, 3:16 PM
Hi,

Is the NRA the California firearms owners best bet to protect our firearms ownereship especially in light of the current 'off-list' lower question? I mean, who is it that traditionally carries the ball in these court fights? Is there more than one 'defender' and how doe's the dominant strategy evolve and who carries that out and doe's the courtroom fighting?

I'm assuming that the collective 'we' are waiting for some future 'test-case' to determine if and how we can keep and use our off-list lowers and firearms.

Should I currently send my money to the NRA or CRPA or to whom to solidly support us on off-list lowers when the time comes?

I fear the coming elections in our state of California and the rest of the country. 'These are the times that try mens' souls'.

HANG TOUGH, just remember. And, let's all be Gentlemen about these things, please!

Joe

UberPhLuBB
05-14-2006, 3:31 PM
Hell no. The NRA doesn't give a damn about you, me, or any of us. They only put their efforts into "sure things," which California isn't. They wouldn't risk a single membership dollar on anything they weren't guaranteed to come out on top of. And even though they don't fight for anything, antis still call them a "powerful lobby." Yeah right.

That's why the NRA will never, ever get a penny from me. Even if they DO start fighting where we need them to fight, they've been ignoring the real fights for too long.

CalNRA
05-14-2006, 5:02 PM
That's why the NRA will never, ever get a penny from me. Even if they DO start fighting where we need them to fight, they've been ignoring the real fights for too long.

I don't see you filing a lawsuit against city of SF for Prop H. NRA did. I guess just because NRA didn't personally guarantee you and you alone a full off list build they are just picking easy fights?

I am sick of people *****ing about how NRA sucks for not over-turning the AW ban in CA. You guys who dis NRA based on the condition that NRA doesn't advocate for gray-area off-list lowers, why not join the NRA and make your voices heard rather than standing on the corner and mumble "f***ing NRA"? You have these lowers? great. KEEP YOUR DAMN MOUTH SHUT so the rest of us can get one without the DOJ banning them because all you guys already have them and want them banned to obtain AW status, unless your intentions are to have them only for yourself and no one else. If you really belive in the RKBA then Make a ballot initiative and get it on ballot. *****ing about what NRA doesn't do is a poor form of playing the blame game.

NRA is an organization that does what its memebers tells it to do. RIght now most of the members are more interested in keeping their Semiauto pistols, rifles and shotguns than black rifles. You want the NRA t oback californians? Join it and go to your local and national meetings to make your voiced heard. Or is that too much to ask for from you people who just want to enjoy the benefits without the work? Too many California gunowners enjoy their rights and try to feel more superior to NRA at the same time, and let me tell ya it does not work out. Can you imagine how much NRA would be obligated to do in California if they HAD ENOUGH MEMBERS IN CALIFNORNIA? Cal up NRA and ask how many members in CA and you will be surprised how low it is. So to recap, you cannot expect an organisation to loby for your state if your state has no members of that organization. That's the nature of any political and civil organizations, you want the benefits? Be a part of it. Trying to get the benefit without participating is like getting welfare checks. And my family hates welfare checks...

The NRA cannot over-ride the voters' power. We are still a democracy and lst time I checked it's the people of California that are passing these nazi like laws.

HillBilly
05-14-2006, 5:07 PM
Hell no. The NRA doesn't give a damn about you, me, or any of us. They only put their efforts into "sure things," which California isn't. They wouldn't risk a single membership dollar on anything they weren't guaranteed to come out on top of. And even though they don't fight for anything, antis still call them a "powerful lobby." Yeah right.

That's why the NRA will never, ever get a penny from me. Even if they DO start fighting where we need them to fight, they've been ignoring the real fights for too long.

God isn't that the truth! If they truly wanted a front line fight for our rights, California right now is the place. I haven't heard a peep from them on this off list issue, and they wont touch it i'm sure. They are too busy giving lectures and trying to get me to buy a NRA logo duffle bag. I will admit I am a member, but really only for 2 reasons:

A. the membership is the price of a magazine subscription, and I get a magazine out of the deal...and

B. Should some liberal anti-gun group get REALLLY frisky in Washington, at the very least they can count the NRA member numbers and consider them their anti-vote.


otherwise, sickening.

HillBilly
05-14-2006, 5:14 PM
I don't see you filing a lawsuit against city of SF for Prop H. NRA did. I guess just because NRA didn't personally guarantee you and you alone a full off list build they are just picking easy fights?

I am sick of people *****ing about how NRA sucks for not over-turning the AW ban in CA. You guys who dis NRA based on the condition that NRA doesn't advocate for gray-area off-list lowers, why not join the NRA and make your voices heard rather than standing on the corner and mumble "f***ing NRA"? You have these lowers? great. KEEP YOUR DAMN MOUTH SHUT so the rest of us can get one without the DOJ banning them because all you guys already have them and want them banned to obtain AW status, unless your intentions are to have them only for yourself and no one else. If you really belive in the RKBA then Make a ballot initiative and get it on ballot. *****ing about what NRA doesn't do is a poor form of playing the blame game.

The NRA cannot over-ride the voters' power. We are still a democracy and lst time I checked it's the people of California that are passing these nazi like laws.



Ahh..another guy who can't afford one pissed off at those who can.

By the way, the idea that a pistol grip turns a safe rifle into a serial killers best friend is the biggest lie ever, and thanks in part to zero support from the NRA, is uncontested.

Also, re: prop H...see the other uses post about "only what they can win". A monkey on cialis could point out the constitutional violations there...the NRA NEEDS to get involved in the grey area...otherwise they will be 100% defense and 0% offense for eternity.

I have been a member for years, and actually can think of nothing they have done to INCREASE my freedoms back to where they constitutionally should be.

UberPhLuBB
05-14-2006, 5:25 PM
I don't see you filing a lawsuit against city of SF for Prop H. NRA did. I guess just because NRA didn't personally guarantee you and you alone a full off list build they are just picking easy fights?

I am sick of people *****ing about how NRA sucks for not over-turning the AW ban in CA. You guys who dis NRA based on the condition that NRA doesn't advocate for gray-area off-list lowers, why not join the NRA and make your voices heard rather than standing on the corner and mumble "f***ing NRA"? You have these lowers? great. KEEP YOUR DAMN MOUTH SHUT so the rest of us can get one without the DOJ banning them because all you guys already have them and want them banned to obtain AW status, unless your intentions are to have them only for yourself and no one else. If you really belive in the RKBA then Make a ballot initiative and get it on ballot. *****ing about what NRA doesn't do is a poor form of playing the blame game.

NRA is an organization that does what its memebers tells it to do. RIght now most of the members are more interested in keeping their Semiauto pistols, rifles and shotguns than black rifles. You want the NRA t oback californians? Join it and go to your local and national meetings to make your voiced heard. Or is that too much to ask for from you people who just want to enjoy the benefits without the work? Too many California gunowners enjoy their rights and try to feel more superior to NRA at the same time, and let me tell ya it does not work out. Can you imagine how much NRA would be obligated to do in California if they HAD ENOUGH MEMBERS IN CALIFNORNIA? Cal up NRA and ask how many members in CA and you will be surprised how low it is. So to recap, you cannot expect an organisation to loby for your state if your state has no members of that organization. That's the nature of any political and civil organizations, you want the benefits? Be a part of it. Trying to get the benefit without participating is like getting welfare checks. And my family hates welfare checks...

The NRA cannot over-ride the voters' power. We are still a democracy and lst time I checked it's the people of California that are passing these nazi like laws.

John "fumble" Kerry would have fought the SF ban. The NRA didn't DO anything. The people in SF still can't have handguns. You call that a victory? Do you call that progress?

The NRA will NEVER, E-V-E-R fight for "assault rifle" rights. They never have, they never will. Remember the 1994 ban? It came to sunset, through no action of the NRA. They won't fight for "assault weapons" if the sun turns blue, not if they had unlimited resources, not even if the liberals wither away and die. They never take action against anything that isn't total common sense, that anyone would support and fight for. You think I'm trying to keep you from buying a lower? How poor are you that you can't make a $90 purchase once? I don't want to register my rifle, NOBODY should have to register ANY gun. Any Constitution-supporting American knows that, but the NRA doesn't do anything to regress gun laws, epecially not here in California, the state with the most gun owners and most guns total. They pick and choose from proposed laws (sparsly I might add) and may take action against one if it's guaranteed not to make them look bad.

They never stick their neck out on ANYTHING, ever. Don't waste a penny on the NRA, they would extend the same courtesy to you.

dhl
05-14-2006, 5:32 PM
I think CalNRA made a very good post!

As for what the NRA has done and continues to do, there's plenty they do that we take for granted, e.g., like education and, let's not forget it was often quoted in the press that 'NRA members' were the base that won things for George Bush in the elections that were close in numerous states.

Granted, my understanding that California is the state with the most gun owners and one of the lowest percentage of NRA members. I do think a lot of gun owners in California take gun rights for granted...as long as the sun is shining and I've got my gun why spend any money on protecting them...

Well, the topic of my question is still about what group is the best in California for protecting us and which one will step up to the line for the upcoming off-list battle in the courts?

Joe

PanzerAce
05-14-2006, 5:55 PM
If you really belive in the RKBA then Make a ballot initiative and get it on ballot. *****ing about what NRA doesn't do is a poor form of playing the blame game.

<snip>

Cal up NRA and ask how many members in CA and you will be surprised how low it is. So to recap, you cannot expect an organisation to loby for your state if your state has no members of that organization.


Maybe people would help out the RKBA if the NRA would AT THE VERY LEAST, TELL PEOPLE IT EXISTS. AFAIK, on the last RKBA try, the NRA wouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole. You would think that with an organization supposedly for gun rights, they would start with that kind of stuff, oh wait, it was in Cali, so never mind.

Also, have you ever thought that maybe there is a reason that many Cali people dont join the NRA? Ill give you a hint, it is because we dont get anything out of it. If you want more members, start fighting in Cali for what WE want, not for what the NRA wants. For instance, AB2111 I think it was that just passed the assembly, no one asked for that, but the NRA was gung ho about it. Yes the stuff that California gun owners DO care about, OLLs, RKBA, etc, the NRA is no where to be found. While I could understand if they didnt officially associate themselves with it, they could atleast let people know that it exists.

/rant

Personally, untill I at least see a game plan or results for how to fix california, I will not join the NRA. Hell, all they need to do is push for a repeal of SB23, actually PUSH for it, and I would join. Thats all I ask, just to get some of my 2A rights back.

Anthonysmanifesto
05-14-2006, 6:29 PM
The intitiative idea is bad strategy in California.

its curious to me how people criticise the NRA for an initiative for not supporting someone elses bad idea.

if the NRA ever did support it, it would still be a bad idea.

PanzerAce
05-14-2006, 6:33 PM
The intitiative idea is bad strategy in California.

its curious to me how people criticise the NRA for an initiative for not supporting someone elses bad idea.

if the NRA ever did support it, it would still be a bad idea.

We never asked for them to support us, we asked them to recognize the fact that it even existed, which they never really did. I remember they said that they had held a discussion about the same idea years ago, and they explained their reasoning at the meeting, but they still refused to tell us why they would not mention us.

And why is it a bad strategy? As far as I can tell, it is the ONLY way to get all of our rights back in California. And if you would read my post, you would see that I am critical of the NRA not for not supporting us.

Anthonysmanifesto
05-14-2006, 7:30 PM
California has obviously not been written off by my NRA, as it is the ONLY state in the union that has NRA offices and full time advocates devoted solely to the Golden State.

That's pretty amazing considering NRA-ILA has the White house, the all federal regulatory agencies, all 535 Members of Congress, all 50 Governors, all 50 Legislatures,all 50 attorneys general, the UN, and tens of thousands of local governments under its watch.

However, I have now tired of defending, on this board, the ONLY gun rights organization that operates in California with the institutional knowledge, relationships in Sacramento, multiple pending relevant lawsuits, active legislation, a winning track record in one of the most brutal political environments in America, successful political campaigns and the political acumen not indulge anyone in a 100 Million Dollar initiative campaign whos merits are suspect and exists only in our minds.

join the NRA, register voters, rinse lather repeat.

mow
05-14-2006, 7:33 PM
Believe what you want about the NRA. It is your right to bash them. If you think you can run the NRA better, join up and vote for leadership or hell run for leadership of the NRA yourself.

Or just keep complaining.:rolleyes:

6172crew
05-14-2006, 8:09 PM
In the first month of the offlist lower ordeal I called and talked w/ the CA NRA head guy, he was there and had already refered folks to the lead guys in order keep the DOJ from calling the suppliers, FFLs etc so we could get these into our hands.

The funky phone calls stopped when I called the NRA and Tom Mcklintock, Im not sure who called inthe dogs but the mouth breathers in Sac were quite for a month.

If your not calling/writing the NRA, DOJ, Local law enforcement, law makers, then your wasting my time.

We had a fantastic effort to get the letters from the DOJ and those folks get my full attention when they post, the others are taking up space.

The NRA never once said they wouldnt back us in our effort to obtain the lowers yet we have all kinds of guys thinking we are without the support.

Notice how that last memo went away? was it you that made it happen?...maybe.:cool:

Talkin2u2
05-21-2006, 10:21 PM
In the first month of the offlist lower ordeal I called and talked w/ the CA NRA head guy, he was there and had already refered folks to the lead guys in order keep the DOJ from calling the suppliers, FFLs etc so we could get these into our hands.

The funky phone calls stopped when I called the NRA and Tom Mcklintock, Im not sure who called inthe dogs but the mouth breathers in Sac were quite for a month.

If your not calling/writing the NRA, DOJ, Local law enforcement, law makers, then your wasting my time.

We had a fantastic effort to get the letters from the DOJ and those folks get my full attention when they post, the others are taking up space.

The NRA never once said they wouldnt back us in our effort to obtain the lowers yet we have all kinds of guys thinking we are without the support.

Notice how that last memo went away? was it you that made it happen?...maybe.:cool:



It amazes me that some people on Calguns.net think the NRA was not involved with supporting the off-list lowers and opposing the so-called "cat 4" AWs.

Do they really think that the NRA would post their strategy on the Internet? How stupid would that be? We probably shouldn't answer that question. :( Answering it is obviously as stupid as complaining that NRA doesn't post.

Some people just make up stuff so they can TRY to justify not joining the NRA. Some of them even throw away their money by supporting CRPA or GOA/GOC:eek:

Ricki Stevens

blacklisted
05-21-2006, 10:23 PM
It amazes me that some people on Calguns.net think the NRA was not involved with supporting the off-list lowers and opposing the so-called "cat 4" AWs.

Do they really think that the NRA would post their strategy on the Internet? How stupid would that be? We probably shouldn't answer that question. :( Answering it is obviously as stupid as complaining that NRA doesn't post.

Some people just make up stuff so they can TRY to justify not joining the NRA. Some of them even throw away their money by supporting CRPA or GOA/GOC:eek:

Ricki Stevens

Supporting organizations besides the NRA is NOT throwing away money. I say support them all.

Talkin2u2
05-21-2006, 10:52 PM
California has obviously not been written off by my NRA, as it is the ONLY state in the union that has NRA offices and fulltime advocates devoted soley to the Golden State.

Thats pretty amazing considering NRA-ILA has the White house, the all federal regulatory agencies, all 535 Members of Congress, all 50 Governors, all 50 Legislatures,all 50 attorneys general, the UN, and tens of thousands of local governments under its watch.

However, I have now tired of defending, on this board, the ONLY gun rights organization that operates in California with the institutional knowledge, relationships in Sacramento, multiple pending relevant lawsuits, active legislation, a winning track record in one of the most brutal poltical environments in America, succesful political campaings and the political acumen not indulge anyone in a 100 Million Dollar initiative campaign whos merits are suspect and exists only in our minds.

join the NRA, register voters, rinse lather repeat.


blacklisted, no flaming intended. But, whether or not you consider supporting many other gun organizations a waste of money, Anthonysmanifesto has hit the nail on the head with his post.

Ricki Stevens
Sacramento, California

stator
05-22-2006, 8:02 AM
blacklisted, no flaming intended. But, whether or not you consider supporting many other gun organizations a waste of money, Anthonysmanifesto has hit the nail on the head with his post.

Ricki Stevens
Sacramento, California


Yeah, but too bad his first statement is not true. Do you ever wonder why VA is very gun friendly?


I am not a lobbyist, but I work part-time for a CA politician who is retiring soon. I can shed some light on lobbyist and their budgets. To start, do you every wonder why there is so much exposure to how much it costs each election cycle for running a campaign? There are two groups who are keenly interested in this which affects their budgets dramatically: politicians and lobbyists.

First the politicians. They want to know how much it will cost to mount an effective campaign. They also want their lobbyists to know how much as well. Politicians need to fund their current campaign debt and future campaigns. This money comes from lobbyists which are more often referred to as "special interest groups" in the past decade and a half. But they are lobbyists just the same.

Now for the lobbyists. They have to annually budget their expenses. In order to figure how much to budget for next year, they use the cost of campaigning as one metric. They do this because if the cost of running for the Governor goes up 25% for each election cycle, they will at least need to budget 25% more to maintain their clout.

You can see where this is going. California has one of the highest costs that has been spiralling upwards and out of control as many analysts say. If you are a nationwide lobbyist, you will feel the heavier burden of the cost of doing business in CA in comparision to most other states. In fact, you may decide you cannot afford to maintain levels and scale back in order to not sacrafice other states more than willing. Just like people and homes, home prices have forced many to move out of state and buy elsewhere.

We can see this must be having an effect on the NRA. Most of their lobbyist efforts (at the state level) have been in the "fly-over" country. Coincidentially, these states are much less costly to run for office. The NRA has simply headed for states where they can get "more bang for the buck". Counter this with the anti's strategy where they dump money into the coast states like CA, NY, and NJ, it is obvious why there is discontent in CA.

So did the NRA abandon us in CA? Oh, heck yes for at least the time being because they cannot afford to lobby in CA to maintain their clout from the 60s and 70s. The danger in doing so is that members may abandon the NRA as well. Hence, is why we see NRA marketing their image to their memberships more than achieving results in this CA for their memberships. I have to say that judging by the NRA posts by CA, their marketing campaign is running out of steam.

As more shooters grow disenchanted with the NRA, they will have to make a decision to abandon CA permanently or get back into spending at the levels CA requires. I will bet that they will come back and spend. Abandoning CA will be the slippery slope of losing national promenance for them.

So, I view the complaining and whining (as some put it here) as part of the trend which is required. This is the swelling of membership unrest that results in those taking action, either by voting the NRA leadership out, or by consolidating their voices and money into another lobbyist group who desires to spend more in CA.

Frankly, I cannot see CA getting much worse than the track we are on. It is quite clear to me that if we continue current status quo of the last ten years, we will be without firearms in the next ten years... 2016. Who here really doubts that?

KenpoProfessor
05-22-2006, 4:22 PM
If the NRA would come out and file a lawsuit that will benefit the people of the PRK, especially in the areas of the Approved CA pistol list, and CCW issues, we'd happily give them the money to finance the cause. Because they've left us out of the loop, we don't join. It's a double edged sword for them but at the very least, if they made an effort, and had it broadcast to the gun owners of CA the NRA is going to make a difference, the goose will give some golden eggs. Hell, let's see some TV commercials again, or even some adds on the internet hotspot sites that PRK people visit. An add in the paper is nothing anymore, but put the add in PLAYBOY, or some other girlie mag and you'd see some cash back for the effort. Get the word out that the NRA is VERY active in CA and the money will flow back into their coffers from those of us unwilling to give it now. Quit bothering the existing members for more money and the junk mail, make it an option when they sign up if they want to receive it or not.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Ford8N
05-22-2006, 5:07 PM
Yeah, but too bad his first statement is not true. Do you ever wonder why VA is very gun friendly?


I am not a lobbyist, but I work part-time for a CA politician who is retiring soon. I can shed some light on lobbyist and their budgets. To start, do you every wonder why there is so much exposure to how much it costs each election cycle for running a campaign? There are two groups who are keenly interested in this which affects their budgets dramatically: politicians and lobbyists.

First the politicians. They want to know how much it will cost to mount an effective campaign. They also want their lobbyists to know how much as well. Politicians need to fund their current campaign debt and future campaigns. This money comes from lobbyists which are more often referred to as "special interest groups" in the past decade and a half. But they are lobbyists just the same.

Now for the lobbyists. They have to annually budget their expenses. In order to figure how much to budget for next year, they use the cost of campaigning as one metric. They do this because if the cost of running for the Governor goes up 25% for each election cycle, they will at least need to budget 25% more to maintain their clout.

You can see where this is going. California has one of the highest costs that has been spiralling upwards and out of control as many analysts say. If you are a nationwide lobbyist, you will feel the heavier burden of the cost of doing business in CA in comparision to most other states. In fact, you may decide you cannot afford to maintain levels and scale back in order to not sacrafice other states more than willing. Just like people and homes, home prices have forced many to move out of state and buy elsewhere.

We can see this must be having an effect on the NRA. Most of their lobbyist efforts (at the state level) have been in the "fly-over" country. Coincidentially, these states are much less costly to run for office. The NRA has simply headed for states where they can get "more bang for the buck". Counter this with the anti's strategy where they dump money into the coast states like CA, NY, and NJ, it is obvious why there is discontent in CA.

So did the NRA abandon us in CA? Oh, heck yes for at least the time being because they cannot afford to lobby in CA to maintain their clout from the 60s and 70s. The danger in doing so is that members may abandon the NRA as well. Hence, is why we see NRA marketing their image to their memberships more than achieving results in this CA for their memberships. I have to say that judging by the NRA posts by CA, their marketing campaign is running out of steam.

As more shooters grow disenchanted with the NRA, they will have to make a decision to abandon CA permanently or get back into spending at the levels CA requires. I will bet that they will come back and spend. Abandoning CA will be the slippery slope of losing national promenance for them.

So, I view the complaining and whining (as some put it here) as part of the trend which is required. This is the swelling of membership unrest that results in those taking action, either by voting the NRA leadership out, or by consolidating their voices and money into another lobbyist group who desires to spend more in CA.

Frankly, I cannot see CA getting much worse than the track we are on. It is quite clear to me that if we continue current status quo of the last ten years, we will be without firearms in the next ten years... 2016. Who here really doubts that?



Good post.

And I do have to wonder about the NRA. Just a couple of regular guys open up the OLL thing and the NRA with all its power couldn't?!? Pretty sad.

xenophobe
05-22-2006, 5:20 PM
The NRA cannot over-ride the voters' power. We are still a democracy and lst time I checked it's the people of California that are passing these nazi like laws.

Does the NRA funnel California membership funds to other states?

Diabolus
05-22-2006, 5:22 PM
Of course!

blacklisted
05-22-2006, 5:22 PM
The NRA cannot over-ride the voters' power. We are still a democracy and lst time I checked it's the people of California that are passing these nazi like laws.

That's funny, because it's not the PEOPLE that are passing these laws. It's the Senators and Assemblymen that were VOTED into office by the people, and will stay that way with the districs as they are.

Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that we don't have any effective representatives lobbying on our behalf.

Then the Governor signs the bill. Don't tell me that the people are directly voting for these laws (except for the case of San Fransisco). Even if they were, it's because of a lack of education, and a failure to represent ourselves in congress.

hoffmang
05-22-2006, 8:53 PM
Filing a gun case in a California State or Federal Court is an automatic lose up to the Appellate level in most cases. That's expensive to always be on the offensive. In some ways, as to the long game, better to use Texas to get better precedent or Washington DC which is quicker, and then get in front of the new and improved SCOTUS.

The concern that is valid is the lobbying/campaign contributions above. The usual MO for NRA in cheaper states is to pick the most anti guy at the state or House level and focus dollars on him so that he loses for his bad gun stance. NRA has done that well in VA for example.

kantstudien
05-22-2006, 9:04 PM
One man (Bill Wiese) did more in 5 months than the NRA has accomplished in the last 20 years in California.

chris
05-22-2006, 9:20 PM
i have say i have given up on the NRA but i have been active membership in the CRPA they deal directly with CA issues. but the NRA needs to come back here and help because if we lose our rights here some states will be emboldened by what CA did. they will say if CA can do it so can we. and the NRA will be behind the power curve. do i see gun ownership disapearing here in 10 yrs. Yes I do, if not gone severelly restrictes worse than DC could ever be. also look at illinois they are just as anti-gun as this state.
you see where i'm coming from if CA bans firearm ownership. the re-districting of this state must be done. the legislators know this if it is done they will not have job security. i think this could be done on the citizen level not what the governor did. if the public were to get this on the ballot it could have a better chance.

i would hope that gun-ownership never gets banned here because there is so much to do as for hunting. we have one of the best flyways for ducks and geese, and so on. but we must fight these losers of sacramento. if we don't we will be to blame. we are already for the what we have. we as gun-owners must get together and vote. remember they go after one type of firearm then move on to the next. so they are after all of them. we must fight hard if we don't. no one can say they did not warn us.

get in the fight and burn up the phone lines and fill the mail bags and crash the e-mail server and overload the fax. and if they vote yes on a bill let the people know that the legislator ignores the public.

let us send a strong message to the elected and the NRA that the gun-owners of CA will not go quietly.

Pappy91W
05-23-2006, 4:55 PM
One man (Bill Wiese) did more in 5 months than the NRA has accomplished in the last 20 years in California.


Boy, THATS the truth.

And before the NRA cheerleaders chime in again about "badmouthing" the NRA instead of joining, I *AM* a LIFE MEMBER.

bwiese
05-23-2006, 5:37 PM
One man (Bill Wiese) did more in 5 months than the NRA has accomplished in the last 20 years in California.

C'mon guys, I didn't do anything except type.

The folks who got this started were blackrazor who got some DSA lowers in spring of 2005 after pestering DOJ w/letters about Harrott legality. We didn't hear publicly of off-list success until Ben Cannon got his CTR02 in fall of '05, and then Wes/Ten Percent's earth-shattering blatant sale of hundreds of lowers at the Dec. San Jose gunshow.

All I did was spend a tad of time to edit/write some stuff up that helped Wes @ Ten Percent safely do the first bulk batch of lower sales in the plain glare of daylight and DOJ observation. Maybe I helped give some people confidence and kept 'em on the straight & narrow by doing the FAQ. I may have been the first one that dug into the law and realized new registration periods could occur, and that they were indeed mandatory if an item became declared an AW.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
05-23-2006, 10:17 PM
One man (Bill Wiese) did more in 5 months than the NRA has accomplished in the last 20 years in California.
I have a hell of a lot of respect for Bill, but that statement is a bunch of bull****.

CTT2
05-24-2006, 11:59 AM
Mainly guys they care more about 2nd amendment rights. The off list lower issue has only a small interest group. If they affiliate or touch it, the liberals will make them look like rightwing gun happy red necks. I think that the NRA will probably move towards the moderate route because that will be their only chance of getting their message across. That is the only way that the NRA will win on anti gun or anti 2nd amendment. If we had more red necks in the state of Commiefornia then there would be no problem for us to have lower recievers. Unfortunately that is not the case, and the NRA will fail if they portray themselves as such. The only way for the NRA to suceed in Commiefornia is if they portray them as the Lawyers, Doctors, School Teachers, Police Officers, and Public Servants. Do you think liberals would win against school teachers in a 2nd amendment rights issue, I think not.

UberPhLuBB
05-24-2006, 12:48 PM
Mainly guys they care more about 2nd amendment rights. The off list lower issue has only a small interest group. If they affiliate or touch it, the liberals will make them look like rightwing gun happy red necks. I think that the NRA will probably move towards the moderate route because that will be their only chance of getting their message across. That is the only way that the NRA will win on anti gun or anti 2nd amendment. If we had more red necks in the state of Commiefornia then there would be no problem for us to have lower recievers. Unfortunately that is not the case, and the NRA will fail if they portray themselves as such. The only way for the NRA to suceed in Commiefornia is if they portray them as the Lawyers, Doctors, School Teachers, Police Officers, and Public Servants. Do you think liberals would win against school teachers in a 2nd amendment rights issue, I think not.

The NRA's demands and the bills they back are extremely neutral and reasonable, and the left STILL think they're a bunch of gun toting rednecks, drinking beer and shooting wildly into the air.

Supporting REAL issues, that make a REAL difference is something the NRA could easily do without losing face, but they don't and never will.

I've read both these NRA threads beginning to end, and I haven't seen anything that comes remotely close to convincing me to send a single penny to the NRA. If they make a hint of movement towards a free California, I'd become a lifetime member and still donate more each month. But they take no risks in California, they stick to the rest of the country primarily. If they don't want to help me, I don't want to help them, and it pains me because I know my money could be used to restore gun rights not just in California but all over the country. It's a shame they won't get my money, or the money of most Californian gun owners.

donger
05-25-2006, 7:17 PM
The NRA is only as strong as its member ship.

I have to agree.

If all the complainers about the NRA's lack of activity in this great state were to join the NRA, maybe we wouldn't be sitting in front of our computer screens scheming, but rather, out at the range shooting our AR's, AK's, Hk's, etc.

More money funneled into the fight will increase the amount of influence the NRA can exert in Sucramento. Money equals more power, etc, etc. More members means more money in the fight. So join up people. And no whiners please!:D

Remember, "I'm the NRA."