PDA

View Full Version : Another NRA Victory - AB 2096 passes out of committee


mikehaas
05-15-2006, 3:24 PM
05/15/2006 - Today, AB 2096 passed out of the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. Thank you for your efforts in contacting the committee. Standby for the bill's next committee and hearing date.

This bill would, for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2007, exempt from those state taxes the gross receipts derived from the sale in this state of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, a firearm safety device, gun safe, or long-gun safe, as defined.

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2096

Benellishooter
05-16-2006, 10:56 AM
Big deal. In the end, this will be used to require all guns to be stored under lock and key and render them useless for self defense.

Does the NRA do anything meaningful for real RKBA in this state?

6172crew
05-16-2006, 11:00 AM
Big deal. In the end, this will be used to require all guns to be stored under lock and key and render them useless for self defense.

Does the NRA do anything meaningful for real RKBA in this state?

Do you ever have anything good to say? I wish guys like you wouldnt bash Mike, I want him to keep posting and if I were him Id tell you to screw off go look it up yourself.

Knock it off already.:cool:

Mike, thanks for the update.

mow
05-16-2006, 11:21 AM
No kidding, make your own thread if you feel that strongly about it.

Do you even vote or do you just ***** and complain?:cool:

Omega13device
05-16-2006, 11:25 AM
Big deal. In the end, this will be used to require all guns to be stored under lock and key and render them useless for self defense.

Does the NRA do anything meaningful for real RKBA in this state?
Mike is helping us out by keeping us up to date on what the NRA is doing. Let's not crap on his posts. If you'd like to see the NRA work on other stuff there are nicer ways to say it.

xenophobe
05-16-2006, 2:59 PM
This is a good bill!

Buy a $500 gun safe, save $41.25, buy a $1000 gun safe, save $82.50.

However, it's a bit premature to call it a victory. Good news, certainly.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-16-2006, 3:04 PM
Big deal. In the end, this will be used to require all guns to be stored under lock and key and render them useless for self defense.

Does the NRA do anything meaningful for real RKBA in this state?

Would you mind keeping comments like that to yourself? There are many here that appreciate what Mike is doing.

Either that or YOU show what the hell YOU are doing to promote gun owners rights.

Benellishooter
05-16-2006, 3:27 PM
Please forgive me if I don't look forward to every propaganda/post where Mike can tell us what a great job the NRA is doing in this state. I am simply reminding you of the truth that the NRA is not doing it's job. These are stupid little events that have no real effect on the RKBA. As a matter of fact, they are a net negative because they give the appearance the NRA actually gives a rip.

The NRA claims to be the organization fighting for RKBA. They happly collect dues our dues. They constantly phone and write begging for more money. I am simply calling them a fraud in this state. If you had more respect for yourself, you would not be content with their leadership.

(They need to back up their claims and justify the money they collect from gunowners)

jnojr
05-16-2006, 4:06 PM
Benellishooter is right... how much time, energy, and money is the NRA expending on this issue when it's, esentially, a non-issue? Who really cares if it passes?

The NRA keeps saying "We care about California, we work hard here", etc... but what actually gets accomplished at the end of the day? Not a whole heck of a lot.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-16-2006, 4:19 PM
Have either of you guys got invoved with the NRA here in CA to see for yourselves or are you just shootin from the hip?

If you dont like the NRA, fine.

If you dont want to be a member, fine.

If you want to post a thread documenting your views of the NRA, do so.

If all you can do is post negative crap everytime Mike posts info, get lost.

Constructive criticism is encouraged....trolling is not.

adamsreeftank
05-16-2006, 4:37 PM
05/15/2006 - [B]
This bill would, for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2007, exempt from those state taxes the gross receipts derived from the sale in this state of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, a firearm safety device, gun safe, or long-gun safe, as defined.


Mike,

Thanks for the valuable info and input to this website.

Can you please educate us on what the NRA is currently working on that would have a direct impact on our ability to keep the guns we currently have and purchase those we are not allowed to, but which are legal under federal law?

Thanks again.

Benellishooter
05-16-2006, 6:34 PM
I am all ears, NRA. (...sounds of crickets chirping...)


P.S. I have a right to post because Mike is promoting something that is largely a fraud. The myth that the NRA cares about CA.

mikehaas
05-16-2006, 7:35 PM
Sorry, guys, NRA won't offer you any false magic pills. Others may fundraise by telling you they can do great things for you. They can't. NRA is telling you the truth.

With a 60-some percent Democrat legislature (and a corresponding 30-some percent GOP), being able to pass pro-gun issues AT ALL is progress. Even if every Republican had a brain and voted pro-gun every time, WE PASS NOTHING. We have to get significant Democrat support to move ANY pro-gun bill, ANY pro-gun issue. AND - have to get significant Democrat support to defeat ANY anti-gun bill, ANY anti-gun issue. That's what NRA is doing - really and truly EDUCATING THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. To get AB 2096 out of Committee, Democrats had to support it. And it's a neat trick - think you could do it? So whenever NRA moves a bill forward, DAMN RIGHT I'll call it a victory - BECAUSE IT IS! A lot of good, pro-gun people - NRA staff AND volunteers - work hard to win such steps, and those who don't - just don't appreciate their worth.

So, no, you aren't going to see magic bullets - major things like the AW Ban repealed - not for a long time anyway. BTW, someone tried that exact thing last year (AB 448) - not NRA, but NRA tried to support it (what else could they do?) There's your big grand attempt at rolling back gun control The result? Didn't get out of it's first committee. Lotta good THAT did anyone, eh? (And gun-owners don't need any more defeat, right Bennellishooter?)

NRA is changing the dynamic in Sacramento. They are hitting the legislature with lots of common-sense legislative issues (tax-free safety devices - how can they say NO?). We are turning around the anti's tactics on themselves.

In 1982, the anti's tried an initiative and LOST BIG TIME. But over the next 20 years, they not only recovered from the loss, THEY GOT SMART. They forgot about gun bans and other silly, big nonsense and started concentrating on smaller goals. Gu storage, trigger locks, ammo taxes, safety lists... etc. Chip, chip, chip - and here we are in 2006.

Well, now NRA is doing the same thing in a highly hostile environment - hostile not only because of anti-gunners, but PRO-GUNNERS TOO. Do we have the patience to win?

Maybe not. You can call NRA a fraud, but they offer the only path out of this mess. And like always, a very few will put in the work and carry the complainers on our backs. It's nothing new.

I think most can tell the difference between complaining and working.
http://calnra.com/gfx/2003-2005.gif
Source:
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?year=2005
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?year=2004
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?year=2003

Geez, this takes a long time. Just think if we put this much energy into unity and focus.

Mike

Benellishooter
05-16-2006, 7:47 PM
I'll summarize. You are basically saying you guys can do nothing substancial for RKBA because there are to many Democrats.

As you have said, they control the legislature. Therefore, they will always be able to chip away more legislatively than you can add back. You are fighting the battle on their terms and according to their strength. Please tell me that you are not serious with this strategy.

Leadership vacuum.

Hillbillly
05-16-2006, 8:18 PM
Hello Mike

I also have a question. You mention the neat trick to get any of the Dems to go along with the NRA sponsored bill.
Does this mean the Dems that vote for the Bill get positive credit on the NRA review of them?
If so, think about it, You are actually helping them get re-elected just because they go along with a weak bills.
So they vote along with these small "NRA Victory" bills and when the next SB23 bill comes along they give it a big hug and kiss and it still looks like they a mostly pro gun on the NRA rating system.

Just Wondering
Thanks

Liberty Rules
05-16-2006, 9:19 PM
I'll summarize. You are basically saying you guys can do nothing substancial for RKBA because there are to many Democrats.

As you have said, they control the legislature. Therefore, they will always be able to chip away more legislatively than you can add back. You are fighting the battle on their terms and according to their strength. Please tell me that you are not serious with this strategy.

Leadership vacuum.

benellishooter,

Aside from revealing the fact that you are bitter and are adding nothing to the discussion about how to move our agenda forward, your post is really pointless If we're going to have some debate, try injecting something thoughtful and/or interesting into your post. Nanny nanny boo boo won't get very far with all of the knowledgeable people here.

I don't know mikehaas or his affiliation with the NRA, and I do not know you from Adam. Your post is just inane. Do you understand how the legislative process works and what it means to be in the minority party in both houses? It's called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y and you need to work within it. Wishing it away will not make it so.

I, too, would like the NRA to do all that is feasibly possible for us. I don't think that they're perfect, but I do not know what other organization you believe is going to lobby for us more effectively than the NRA. There is no other gun rights organization with as much clout as the NRA in the legislative halls throughout the country. It's all you've got, or will ever have, so you should stop trying to piss all over people who work with it. Maybe they will stop taking the time to post here and say to hell with you. Where would that get us? A good starting point for you would be to work on defeating your opponents instead of trying to destroy your kin. I will also give you advice that I give myself on occasion--try not to be so obnoxious. In the end, aren't we all here because we share a passion for firearms and the shooting sports?

Liberty Rules
05-16-2006, 9:33 PM
My worry is that some (obviously democratic-controlled) committee gets hold of the bill, and either guts it and replaces it with a different bill, or adds an amendment of their choosing.

treelogger,

That's a risk you run with every single bill that goes through the legislature. Heck, you could start out with a wheat farming bill and it could wind up banning rifles. None of us has control over what sitting legislative members wish to introduce or amend, should they garner the votes. The only way to change the direction of the legislature is to elect more members that agree with your positions. In the meantime, you can't stop trying to pass good legislation simply because some other idiots can outvote it. And you take what you can get. A little good is better than nothing.

Look at it another way, if anti-gun dems have a sufficient majority to gut and amend a bill, then they have a sufficient majority to introduce something from scratch and pass it anyway. When you are in a weak position vote-wise, you must compromise and take what little gains that you can get. In this state, that means that you have to get democrat votes for anything to pass. I hate it, but that's the way it is.

Educate your friends, family and neighbors about firearms and who participates in the sport. Maybe then a majority of people will stop supporting gun bans here. I go out of my way to tell friends and coworkers about the firearms I shoot and various issues in the news. They invariably say "Gee, I didn't know that." It also puts a face on the sport. Instead of thinking that only terrorists shoot 50 BMG rifles, they think of me and my shooting club whenever they hear a story on the news.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. I must need food or something.

linuxgunner
05-16-2006, 9:33 PM
The NRA is accomplishing as much as can be accomplished in California. Ideally, politicians reflect the views of their voters, and in CA, a lot of voters want to ban everything. But California isn't ideal. Due to the gerrymandering, the assembly is actually more liberal and Democrat than California voters are. So we've got what we've got and we need to work on educating and working with liberals and Democrats. It won't be quick or easy but we will do it, and the way it will happen is by working together on the small stuff.

And obviously, AB 2096 is small stuff. It's going to have basically no impact on us. But it is an example of COOPERATION between the NRA and committee members. I have learned that sometimes just showing up and asking for what you want, and you keep on asking, can make things happen.

And yes, AB 448 crashed and burned. I got dozens of people to send letters to everyone on the Public Safety Committee but the bill went nowhere.

Any incremental change would be good.

And at the local level, there's a new player: http://CaliforniaCCW.org . That's a place where we can win in races which are low-profile, low-turnout, non-partisan and local. No one has paid much attention to sheriffs, until now!

If we can get even one more urban county to start issuing (which we will), that would be a MAJOR victory for California.

Rumpled
05-17-2006, 12:13 AM
I gotta go mostly with Benellishooter on this.
No offense menat to Mike Haas and his keeping us up to date on the NRA party line.
This bill is totally nonconsequential and neither side of the aisle could really care less. NRA gets to toot their horn on a positive bill.
It appears to me that the NRA has a national agenda of introducing and trying to get passed legislation such as this. This is fine in the free US where this is a small, incremental advancement of gun rights.
Here in the PRK the NRA is completely silent on OLL. AWB repeal and improving CCW to shall issue, though they count CA as one of the 47 states that does issue. (Just not to 99% of the potential applicants since we are MIGHT isssue)
These are the real issues to CA gun owners.
Sure, they are involved in the SF lawsuit; though the NRA didn't file first and it is a guaranteed win; even in the PRK and 9th Circus.

As I've said before, this bill only benefits the safe manufacturers. And not even that much. It's just the clincher from the sleazy salesman to seal the deal "And no sales tax on this baby here"

So it'll save me 77.5 cents on the $10 lock I don't have to buy because I own a safe.

If you ask me ( and I know you didn't but here I go anyways) this probably brings more trouble to wholesalers, retailers and the Board of Equalization to keep track of what ISN'T taxed than it's worth.

All that being said, I'm a life member of the NRA; I just wish in CA they would deal with substantive issues - not saving a few pennies on a cheesy lock that I shouldn't be required to buy in the first place.

Benellishooter
05-17-2006, 5:46 AM
My posts are valuable because they illustrate that the current strategy has not worked for us and will never work for us. Mike's analysis basically admits this fact. The NRAs strategy, for lack of a better term, ignores our strengths completely. Begging socialist Democrats for gun rights year after year in the legislature is not exactly enlightened behavior. We need to fight according to the strengths we have against their weaknesses.

It is insanity to play their game year after year and expect to win.

Here is one of our strengths. Gun owners spend tons of money on guns, ammunition and accessories. The gun industry NEEDS us to survive. This is undeniable. The same gun industry also sells the these products to our enemy, the State of California. We are the bigger of the two markets. The State of California needs these products and services to do it's job. That is their weakness.

The off list lower craze has taught us that gunowners are capable of individual massive action on a fairly large scale when they are energized by a concept that will work. The power of the internet is clearly on our side as an organizational tool. Anti-gunners don't hit the Sarah Brady webpage a dozen times a day to see "whats up". This is a strength for gunowners. Also, Ronnie Barrett has given us a small hint on what we as a group need to do to apply the leverage on both the state and the gun industry to demand our rights back. But, he can't do it alone.

I am not going to give you the answer. I want you to figure it out. It is so obvious. Tell me how to use our strengths agains their weakness to win.

(Remember, what we are doing now isn't working and is a losing strategy.)

6172crew
05-17-2006, 6:25 AM
I bought a Cannon T27 a couple of years ago, the tax was 87 bucks. How is it that this bill sucks again? (other than its a year or 2 to late):cool:

Im guessing the folks bashing the NRA arent members but I could be wrong. I called when we first started the OLL deal and the head of the CA NRA was behind us all the way and has supplied guys on this board with legal counsel.
Im not sure folks bashing the NRA have a clue what the NRA does, but they sure can point out what they havent done.

Im just as frustrated as anyone with our gun laws and is the only reason I help sell lowers, I would be in alot less trouble with my family if I didnt spend hours talking with guys about the AR15 receivers.


Id like to know what the NRA is doing about the new DOJ memo and since Mike seems to know the inside scoop maybe he can tell us somthing, but that is if you guys dont scare him off.:rolleyes:

Benellishooter
05-17-2006, 7:01 AM
It is not a bad bill. But, getting $40 off your next safe does not win the battle long term.

The NRA needs a plan that will produce victory in California. You do this by thinking big, not small. Use the strengths we have against their weaknesses.

What we are doing now will guarrantee our defeat.

Lester
05-17-2006, 7:32 AM
The only way sweeping legislation gets passed in this state is through the referendum process. Rob Reiner knows this, and look at the nutty things he has been able to get made into law. Now he is about to have us taxpayers pay for free baby sitting for every toddler under school age. So why haven't we gun people done the same thing? I think we have a lot more fire in our bellies than even the most rabid Democrat pinko. I'll bet we could put together a bill called something like the "Home Protection Act" or the "Home Defense Restoration Act" and get our people to stand in front of every Walmart, K-Mart, and Target in the state. If we can get it on the ballot we stand a chance of restoring our rights. I'm retired and I'll volunteer for the weekday shifts, while you working guys can do it on weekends.

-hanko
05-17-2006, 8:00 AM
05/15/2006 - Today, AB 2096 passed out of the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. Thank you for your efforts in contacting the committee. Standby for the bill's next committee and hearing date.

This bill would, for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2007, exempt from those state taxes the gross receipts derived from the sale in this state of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, a firearm safety device, gun safe, or long-gun safe, as defined.

Nice job; note also that if you store tax records in the safe that part of the purchase price is tax deductable, at least on your federal return. Not a CPA, etc.

I've been an NRA member for >20 years, I've contributed well into 5-figure territory during that time. I also regularly contact my legislators, blah-blah. I'd like to see the "from my dead hands" speech happen again with the NRA Pres holding an EBR. Think that will happen in our lifetimes...think again:rolleyes: . NRA is still clearly focused on their mainsteam members; they're still a money grubbing machine. My contributions stopped last month, my membership will lapse this year.

-hanko

6172crew
05-17-2006, 8:30 AM
I would like to see the NRA push a bill that would allow a open reg for AWs, I would even be ok with a AW tax or fee for legal ownership of a AW in CA.

How many guys out there have AWs and tink they were reg'd when they DROS'd through the FFL? How many guys out there are felons and dont even know it. The OLL would no longer be a problem, and the FALs would no longer be a thorn in the DOJs side.

.......its a step in the right direction and I think its a common sence answer to a hugh problem.

mikehaas
05-17-2006, 8:58 AM
Hello Mike

I also have a question. You mention the neat trick to get any of the Dems to go along with the NRA sponsored bill.
Does this mean the Dems that vote for the Bill get positive credit on the NRA review of them?
If so, think about it, You are actually helping them get re-elected just because they go along with a weak bills.
So they vote along with these small "NRA Victory" bills and when the next SB23 bill comes along they give it a big hug and kiss and it still looks like they a mostly pro gun on the NRA rating system.

Just Wondering
Thanks

Don't get caught in the nieve trap of calling Democrats the evil party. There are a core set of Democrats that are very pro-gun. They author pro-gun bills for us, work behind the scenes to advance our issues and help us with other Democrats. One of our jobs as gun-owners should be to increase the ranks of pro-gun Democrats as well as Republicans. Besides, does anyone here believe that all Republicans are pro-gun? Of course not.

One of the most pro-gun lawmakers that ever graced the halls of Sacramento was a very liberal, very black Democrat, from East L.A. - Rod Wright. I doubt I would agree with him on a single non-gun issue, but he was FIERCELY pro-gun - a 100% vote-with-NRA record, and that's all that matters to our single-issue NRA. the guy had real balls. One time an anti-gun Dem staffer weakened a pro-gun bill he authored without his permission - he slammed the kid up against the wall and warned him to never, ever mess with one of his gun bills again. Here he is getting the very exclusive NRA "Defender of Freedom Award", posing with our lobbyist Ed Worley...
http://calnra.com/caspecial/rodw/
Unfortunately, term limits took out Mr. Wright, just as it does a lot of good lawmakers we get in there. (Term limits hurt gun owners as bad as any anti-gun bill in the state.)

We know the names of the Dems that use gun issues to advance their careers - Koretz, Perata, Scott, etc. But they gained support within the Dem party by lying to their fellow Democrats, and NRA has been exposing those lies. In fact, Ed has the respect of EVERY lawmaker because he never lies to them. Democrats don't like being lied to any more than anyone else.

Yes, NRA will support Democrats (and Republicans) that have consistently beel loyal to RKBA. You wouldn't want it any other way. Nothing would kill NRA's ability to advanve our interests faster than to get a reputation as a backstabber - not support those who support us. We always want to reinforce pro-gun lawmakers and weaken those with anti-gun agendas, regardless of party.

BTW, did you know that NRA even managed to get Perata to weaken the penalty for illegal AW possession? In 2003, Perata authored SB 238, which lowered the penalty for the simple possession of an unregistered AW to a simple infraction (ticket) and not endanger gun rights. We supported the bill and passed it (it helped gun owners immensely). No, NRA won't support Perata in the any election, but it's an example of the kind of thing that happens that most aren't aware of.

We're going to fix problems in the state with out-of-the-box thinking, one step at a time. Keep the faith, guys, because NRA needs our support too.

mikehaas
05-17-2006, 9:12 AM
I would like to see the NRA push a bill that would allow a open reg for AWs, I would even be ok with a AW tax or fee for legal ownership of a AW in CA.


NRA would like to also, but it could not pass right now. As we said, incremental change is the key. This year we've introduced AB 2131...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2131
...which does open up AW registration for certain groups. We'll have to really pull together to pass it. (Hint: bashing NRA's efforts is not "pulling together".)

The idea is to FIRST - try to open up AW registration, if only a bit. That's never been done. If successful, we'll try to open a bit more. Chip, chip, chip. No magic bullets, just hard work.

We are in this mess because gun-owners haven't been engaged sufficiently in elections and moving bills in the state. Will you help now?

Mike

phish
05-17-2006, 9:19 AM
I would like to see the NRA push a bill that would allow a open reg for AWs, I would even be ok with a AW tax or fee for legal ownership of a AW in CA.

How many guys out there have AWs and tink they were reg'd when they DROS'd through the FFL? How many guys out there are felons and dont even know it. The OLL would no longer be a problem, and the FALs would no longer be a thorn in the DOJs side.

.......its a step in the right direction and I think its a common sence answer to a hugh problem.

I think this accounts for the majority of the unregistered AWs here. When the buyer filled out all the forms, answered all the asinine questions, he must have thought he was good to go.

I'm a little sketchy on a tax or permit for AWs. The fee could be ridiculous (DMV) and even on a per gun basis. The politicians are always looking for new ways to shake us down though, and some of us hardcore gun nuts would be willing to pay the price of admission.

I think I know what strategy benellishooter is alluding to: have the gun companies pull support for any CA gov't agency. This works for Barrett since he's a relatively small volume manufacturer and has federal contracts and even some international sales. But "mainstream" companies could come under fire for being perceived as "anti cop". When you think about it, it's like penalizing the rank and file LEO for the actions of the few politically motivated LEOs.

I'm not saying that it couldn't work, it very well may, but at what price to LEOs?

mikehaas
05-17-2006, 9:45 AM
The only way sweeping legislation gets passed in this state is through the referendum process. Rob Reiner knows this, and look at the nutty things he has been able to get made into law...

Not for gun issues. Remember, even the antis lost BIG when they tried to use it. And the left owns the media - they will come out against a gun issue like never before. No, I retract that. They will operate with the same ferocity they did when they opposed restrictions on services to illegal immigrants (Prop 187). And remember how Prop 187 turned out? Some victory for it's supporters, eh?

The easy part of an initiative is qualifying it. Biggest problem is expense after it's on the ballot. Over 14 million voters. The Indian Gaming Initiative cost $110 million. That represents almost half of NRA's budget for an entire year. That alone means "No way, Jose.". CA is the most expensive media market in the country, and a gun issue is likely to be even more controversial and cost that much more.

Now - imagine bankrupting NRA just to lose the whole thing, either at the ballot box or in court. Sorry, I don't want *MY* NRA acting that irresponsibly. You don't either, do you?

We have to remember that government is DESIGNED to move slowly. The initiative process is fraught with problems bacause it is an attempt to bypass that fact.

No, to be successful, we simply MUST become more functional in the legislature. The legislative process is constant, happens every years and will be there in 50 years. If we don't increase our control in that vital body, we lose. There may be other things we can do too, but they are incidental and problematic. This is what counts, the actual process of government - that which was used to take away our rights.

Anything else would be temporary "Battle of the Bulge" gains - they would just get taken away by the chip, chip, chip action of the legislature. The legislature can pass new law as well as use the initiative process themselves, and they can qualify initiatives on their own, without needing to get signatures.

No, the legislature is where the real battle must be. To win, we must win there.

bwiese
05-17-2006, 10:23 AM
I think I know what strategy benellishooter is alluding to: have the gun companies pull support for any CA gov't agency. This works for Barrett since he's a relatively small volume manufacturer and has federal contracts and even some international sales. But "mainstream" companies could come under fire for being perceived as "anti cop". When you think about it, it's like penalizing the rank and file LEO for the actions of the few politically motivated LEOs.

There's also larger trust/collusion/unfair biz issues invovled if a variety of gun co's got together and refused to sell to CA agencies. While that is a political statement, such a collaboration could involve bigger trade issues.

About 10 years ago, a variety of San Jose car dealers boycotted the San Jose Mercury News paper because of some articles about unfair sales practices, pricing policies, etc. Car dealers form a huge portion of a metro newspaper's ad revenues, esp with the Fri, Sat and/or Sunday new car color supplements.

The FTC was all over 'em... here it is: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1995/08/scautoad.htm


After the San Jose Mercury News ran an article in May 1994 telling consumers how to analyze new car factory invoices so that they could be better negotiators when buying cars, local car dealers retaliated by conspiring to cancel their advertising in the paper, according to the Federal Trade Commission. That's illegal, the FTC charged. The car dealers could have made individual decisions to pull their advertising, but an agreement to do so restrains competition among dealers and chills the publication of important consumer information, making it more difficult for consumers to compare dealer prices and services.

The Santa Clara County Motor Car Dealers Association, which allegedly orchestrated the boycott, has agreed to settle the FTC charges under an order that would prohibit it from engaging in any effort to boycott a media outlet, and require the Association to educate its members about the Commission's action.

"By ensuring consumer access to advertising, this antitrust case is as important to consumers as the cases we bring to ensure that advertising is true and not deceptive," said FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky. "Advertising is a key source of price and other information and when competitors band together to restrict it, consumers lose. That's especially true here, where the boycott was orchestrated in retaliation to a news story that also contained important consumer information. The settlement is designed to ensure that the car dealers involved in the boycott will comply with the law prohibiting agreements to restrict advertising in the future and to send the message that the FTC will take law-enforcement action against such agreements."

The Association, based in Campbell, California, has approximately 47 members, constituting about 50 percent of the new automobile and truck dealers in Santa Clara County, according to the FTC complaint detailing the charges in this case. The complaint alleges that Association members agreed to cancel the ads each had scheduled for the paper after the May 1994 article ran, and thereafter withheld their advertising from the paper. Daily circulation for the San Jose Mercury News exceeds 600,000, according to industry sources.

The proposed consent agreement to settle the FTC charges, announced today for public comment, would prohibit the Association from carrying out, participating in, inducing or assisting any boycott or concerted refusal to deal with any newspaper, periodical, television or radio station. The settlement would not prohibit the Association from engaging in joint advertising programs, so long as they are not a part of any such boycott or concerted refusal to deal.

In addition, the settlement would require the association to amend its by-laws to incorporate the above prohibition, and to distribute the amended by-laws and the final Commission order to each of its members. Finally, the settlement contains various reporting provisions that would assist the FTC in monitoring the Association's compliance.

The FTC's San Francisco Regional Office investigated this matter.

The Commission vote to announce the proposed consent agreement for public comment was 5-0. It will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the Office of the Secretary, FTC, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $10,000.

Copies of the complaint, proposed consent agreement, and an analysis of the agreement to assist the public in commenting are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, same address as above; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 1-866-653-4261.

Benellishooter
05-17-2006, 10:58 AM
Individual Manufacturers can decide on their own if they will chose to deal with the State of California. Individual gunowners can decide to patronize the manufacturers that decide on their own to refuse to sell to the State of California. We can make it too expensive for manufacturers to deal with the enemy. The NRA can lead this effort. It can be done legally. To restore our normal buying practices, all California would need to do would be to extend Californians the same rights as other free states.

What we are doing now is a guarranteed plan for failure. The illegal aliens have better leadership than we do.

mow
05-17-2006, 11:13 AM
Negative Nancy in sector 2B :rolleyes:

Liberty Rules
05-17-2006, 1:14 PM
Individual Manufacturers can decide on their own if they will chose to deal with the State of California. Individual gunowners can decide to patronize the manufacturers that decide on their own to refuse to sell to the State of California. We can make it too expensive for manufacturers to deal with the enemy. The NRA can lead this effort. It can be done legally. To restore our normal buying practices, all California would need to do would be to extend Californians the same rights as other free states.

What we are doing now is a guarranteed plan for failure. The illegal aliens have better leadership than we do.

So exactly how do you propose to force those individual manufacturers to stop selling here? If they wanted to do that, they presumably would have done so already given all of the barriers to sales that already exist here. They obviously do not want to do that. Further, although it sounds lovely, it is an overly simplistic idea. Think it through. Many manufacturers make a significant portion of their revenue from LE sales. All CA would have to do is ask some other states to reverse boycott any company that boycotted CA LE. So what do you think a manufacturer would do when faced with 13 states boycotting its products? Most if not all would cave. So if they know that can and would happen, why do you think that they will all take the leap for your boycott plan in the first place?

Remember, companies and the people who own them are in business to make a profit. Unless really forced to do so, they will not bet their company's future on a whim. How much in monetary terms do you think they will sacrifice of their capital to help your boycott? Do you think Glock would spend $1 Million to help us get off list lowers registered? You also need to understand that a CEO of a public company has a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of the company's shareholders. Trust me, a well intentioned boycott in solidarity with CA's neglected citizens does not trump shareholder's rights nor their expectations for the use of company assets.

Ronnie Barrett is in a more unique position. He has a product that is not easily replaced so he does not run a high risk of going out of business due to a ban on CA LE sales. Name another semi 50 which has passed military and LE testing for its application. (There aren't many semi 50's, period. Barrett also gets a fat chunk of sales from the U.S. military.) Now consider how many options a police force has to choose from for a service revolver or pistol. 1 versus 500? In this instance, all it takes is for one or two competitors to opt out of the boycott and it fails to have the effect that you intended. If you don't think that some of the manufacturers will continue to sell to CA LE you are deluding yourself. What about those manufacturers owned by foreign companies? Most of them come from countries which barely allow civilian sales, if at all. Do you think that HK would stop selling to LE? How about Glock? They get too much business from governments.

Now take your example of Ronnie Barrett and apply it to your manufacturer boycott plan. Barrett boycotted CA LE because of their positions on anti gun legislation. A year or so later, the CA legislature banned 50 BMG rifles anyway and dopey Schwarzenegger signed it. Barrett had a virtual monopoly on the LE semi auto 50 market. And the ban still passed. (rat bastards)

Lastly, I again call your attention to R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. It's nice to postulate about a whizbang solution which has .00000001% chance of ever coming to fruition. But expecting the NRA to force CA to only buy chocolate guns from Willie Wonka is not a realistic strategy. It would be great if it happened, but it's not very likely. If you draw the conclusion from this reality that the NRA is defective for not implementing it anyway, I propose to you that your view is unreasonable. Sometimes you have to pick and choose your battles and what you do pick is a judgment call. (By the way, if you really wanted to persuade the NRA to pick up your cause and run with it, you have an interesting sales pitch--attacking them, calling them incompetent, and generally pissing in their faces is probably not the best method of persuasion.)

In addition, sometimes to be effective in politics you have to avoid the extremes of either side of a debate. I presume that NRA is in that boat. Now, our view of the edges of "extreme" are very different from the libs, but there are still political pressures whenever lobbying is involved. Remember, lobbyists cannot force any legislator to vote in their favor. All they can do is try to persuade a legislator to vote their way. What is your plan to PERSUADE liberal dems on the assembly committees to vote in our favor?

Now, if you want to start a petition to certain manufacturers asking them to pressure their LE contacts to stop supporting anti firearm laws in CA and elsewhere, I will be the first to sign it. I believe that is realistic, or at least partially effective in getting our voices out there even if the effort ultimately fails. However, if our efforts are not successful, I will not automatically blame the NRA and claim that they lack leadership. Sometimes people and positions lose because they are in the weaker position politically, even if the weight of law and logic is on their side. Being really smart, really loud, and carrying a big stick won't do much when confronting rolling armor. Just ask the poor chaps in Tiananmen Square. Then again, I'm sure that you would blame it on a "leadership vacuum" among the students because they lost.

Liberty Rules
05-17-2006, 1:28 PM
I have another suggestion which touches on a point I made in an earlier post. I take every opportunity to discuss my shooting sports with friends, family and colleagues so that they understand it and can put a face with the sport. That way, when they hear on the news that someone had an evil assault weapon <insert sarcasm here>, they might not nod their heads in agreement. Instead, they may think, "Oh, my friend told me all about those; they are semi auto, not fully automatic like a thought before." They might also react differently when the idiot cop comes on nhe news and says that a guy had an "arsenal" because he had 12 guns and 2,000 rounds of ammunition. Instead of thinking the guy is an armageddon nut, they might hearken back to that conversation where you explained that a gun is like a tool--do they have only one tool in their tool box? One gun might be for light target practice, another for small varmints, and yet another for deer. Heck, explain to people that buying ammo in bulk is cheaper; ask if they shop at Costco! They'll get the point.

How about we and the NRA start a new education campaign. Call it "Take a Newbie to the Range Day." Each NRA member would take a complete newbie to the range and show them the ropes. As we all know, sometimes it only takes one trip to the range and people are hooked. After they've done it, they understand that it is fun and safe, not evil.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-17-2006, 1:50 PM
Good thing this thread was not hijacked.......:)

Benellishooter
05-17-2006, 1:55 PM
If every gunowner in America boycotted companies doing business with oppressive state regimes, the gun industry would choose us over them.

Either way, find a source of strength and fight from that. Otherwise, you can beg the legislature for your rights every year. And loose.