PDA

View Full Version : CALCCW.com forum poster posting false info about CGF/CGN Activities


Gray Peterson
10-21-2010, 3:09 PM
CalCCW Thread On the Carry Initiative (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements/17141-cgf-announcing-carry-initiative-ventura-county-suit.html)

Ya know, I have a full time job and don't have time to do your research for you. So, before you make statements that you believe I'm BS'ing here, why don't you LOOK for yourself. Try searching calguns archives for "bullet button" etc. You'll find more than a couple of posts from way back about how people were arrested and prosecuted for having them until the current view that they require a
"tool." You'll see some convictions there.

Next try looking up the original OLL theory and see where it gets you. LOTS of arrests and some prosecutions with plea bargains. Some as recent as 2006 or so. Yes, OLL's are NOW legal (f you follow the rules) but originally the OLL "movement" was based on social disagreement with the law. The law was eventually clarified but that doesn't do those original guys much good after they were convicted.

There have been no convictions in the state of California for Bullet Buttons (which was invented in 2006) or for OLL's. There are no Category IV AW's due to the OLL movement. The only case where there was a prosecution, the Milpitas Lowers case, was dismissed. Factual findings of innocence were very common.

I challenge you to find me one conviction where an OLL rifle or a bullet button was used and a person was still was convicted of creating an assault weapon (save an admission that they put in a 10+ magazine into an OLL rifle or something similarly stupid). You won't find any. Parroting falsehoods just to be contrarian is a sign of bad moral character.

Then look up the "parts kits" posts about high cap magazines. Seems there's a lot of views that you can sell an entire high cap mag as a "parts kit" and get around the law. This is current stuff.

Except every time it gets posted, CGF directors tell people not to pull this crap. You keep mixing up the stupid posters who ask silly questions (because honestly, anyone can join) with the experts on the CGF Board of Directors.

And, while I know that CGF is not the same as the Calguns website, the website is populated by the same folks as those who run the Calguns Foundation. They have the same goals, and the same views. Thus, the website can be viewed, in part, as the alter ego of the aims and ambitions of CGF. It certainly is the public commentary of the ongoing acts of CGF.

There sure is. Though every CGF Director posts on CGN, not every CGN member who suggest stupid things is on the board of directors for CGF. Tens of thousands of forum posters, where anyone can join, versus nine board members on the CGF Board who are among the most knowledgable subject matter experts in the firearms field.

So, in the end it comes down to this...I disagree with SOME of what CGF does. I do this because it's my job to look at the risks of any conduct and advise people of those risks. When I look at what CGF does and advocates; SOME OF IT falls into the "high risk" category in my assessment. Your personal view may be different because you either have more or less information than I do. However, that doesn't change what I know and how I view it.

Except you're basing this on false information that you yourself are spreading.

And, to get this back on track, the OP about the PRR for Ventura County is just one of those types of things. It was done too early knowing that Brooks would probably deny (or ignore) the PRR because he could dump it onto Dean. Then the suit was filed - again too early for Dean to officially act. My question is WHY??? The only answer I can come up with is that CGF needs the publicity. Which is a pretty lousy reason IMO and shows the mentality of the CGF.
IBTL

The filing of the lawsuit, from what I've read of the suit, had absolutely nothing to do with the changing of the sheriff's seat. The sheriff, in his official capacity, via his county counsel, denied CGF the records it is entitled to as a member of the public per CBS v. Block. Waiting for 2 months to see what Sheriff-elect Dean would do and then ask him nicely again is not how legal stuff works. It has nothing to with publicity, it has everything to do with fixing the carry licensing system throughout the state of California, to the benefit of all people.

You keep trying to make it political and make it about Brooks and Dean. This has zero to do with politics.

Sacramento County Sheriff's now quietly issue licenses to carry with the good cause of "self-defense", because of the Sykes case pressuring them to comply with the constitution. You should be more appreciative of the fact that the CGF freed 1.5 million people, in the near future, millions more and perhaps the entire populations of two states (California and Hawaii). What have you done other than spread falsehoods about other organizations who did these things?

I would post this over at CalCCW.com, but my membership there is on a moderate status (and my posts not approved) because I asked the forum to give me examples of statutory violations of law. The forum administration there decided that rather than accepting an alternative viewpoint to theirs (which supposes that there are statewide restricted places off limits per the application, that the sheriff can require polygraph tests, they can limit guns on the permit), they decided to muzzle me. I ask that folks who post here and who also post at Calccw.com make their displeasure known (without breaking their forum rules or trolling their site) to Ron P and other members of the forum who are parrotting falsehoods about this forum and about CGF.

MasterYong
10-21-2010, 3:19 PM
:popcorn:

CSDGuy
10-21-2010, 3:21 PM
Interesting that the two links posted don't go anywhere...

One gives a 404 error and the other goes to a thread that seems to not exist on this site.

I did find the CalCCW thread and it seems that one of the members posted erroneous info, corrected by our own Gene Hoffman from here who was thanked by what appears to be CalCCW staff.

I wouldn't dump all over an entire site because a non-staff member posted bad info. Same here. I've seen bad info posted here that's corrected in that thread... and I've not seen much about smacking down this site because of it...

RRangel
10-21-2010, 3:24 PM
The link shows a 404. Also, it does not bode well for said poster to demonstrate his lack of knowledge on the subject. It would probably serve him well to research the subject of what he speaks.

Peter.Steele
10-21-2010, 3:26 PM
You know, I ran into a similiar FUD about the BB at a gun store in Fresno a couple months ago. July, August, something like that. The guys working in the store were telling me that there was a guy on trial - at that very moment - for having a bullet button, and that they were completely illegal.


This sort of FUD is everywhere.



Interesting that the two links posted don't go anywhere...


Take a closer look at where the link is going to. :rolleyes:

CSDGuy
10-21-2010, 3:30 PM
You know, I ran into a similiar FUD about the BB at a gun store in Fresno a couple months ago. July, August, something like that. The guys working in the store were telling me that there was a guy on trial - at that very moment - for having a bullet button, and that they were completely illegal.


This sort of FUD is everywhere.






Take a closer look at where the link is going to. :rolleyes:
I did... first link has finally been fixed and goes to the correct location. Click on the little icon behind "Rob P" in the quote and you'll see what I mean about the links.

It's supposed to go here (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements/17141-cgf-announcing-carry-initiative-ventura-county-suit.html#post230776) and it doesn't.

RobG
10-21-2010, 3:31 PM
Looks like Gene set him straight.

paul0660
10-21-2010, 3:33 PM
Too late for me.........I got frustrated with the repetitive their way or the highway attitude at CalCCW and was eventually banned. I occasionally look in and chuckle at the noobs who are just as baffled as I was by the sometimes obtuse attitude to the law there. At any rate, since their meal ticket Carona went to jail, things have not been the same. I think that shall issue in California strikes them much the same way Prop 19 strikes a big pot grower.......why let the little guys in on a good deal?

wildhawker
10-21-2010, 3:54 PM
Calccw staff didn't even see fit to allow me to respond directly to posts about me personally (and lies about my CPRA request promulgated by the outgoing Kings County Sheriff). There are some excellent member/participants at calccw, and it's unfortunate that a very few wish to see it a vacuum, er, echo chamber.

dantodd
10-21-2010, 3:55 PM
Many of the people at CALCCW are still living in 2009 where GC is closely guarded and the implications of Guilory are closely held secrets. Like many folks they seem to be afraid that copying GC too closely will set off alarm bells in the SO and they will start denying.

Now that CGF has blown the roof off of the theory that the sheriff will start denying who they would otherwise approve in light of GC and Guilory implications being openly discussed.

Sacramento proved them wrong but many still want to be "special people" who can help those whom they deem good enough to join the club.

I am sure that in the next few months not only will they accept the new world of open GC but they will start openly helping people craft generic good cause statements for each county and will help shepherd even more new applicants through the process.

As Alan Gura can tell you, even those who most fear the fearless man will claim victory alongside him then the battle is won.

Peter.Steele
10-21-2010, 3:59 PM
I did... first link has finally been fixed and goes to the correct location. Click on the little icon behind "Rob P" in the quote and you'll see what I mean about the links.

It's supposed to go here (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements/17141-cgf-announcing-carry-initiative-ventura-county-suit.html#post230776) and it doesn't.


Right. Exactly to the same place that the other link went before it was fixed, which is: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=231240#post231240

Look. At. The. Link.

Calguns.net.

Gray Peterson
10-21-2010, 4:00 PM
Interesting that the two links posted don't go anywhere...

One gives a 404 error and the other goes to a thread that seems to not exist on this site.

I did find the CalCCW thread and it seems that one of the members posted erroneous info, corrected by our own Gene Hoffman from here who was thanked by what appears to be CalCCW staff.

I wouldn't dump all over an entire site because a non-staff member posted bad info. Same here. I've seen bad info posted here that's corrected in that thread... and I've not seen much about smacking down this site because of it...

Except the sort of mentality is endemic of the CalCCW.com forum and the treatment I have received there.

Registration for gun (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/15935-gun-reg-ccw.html)

The response from CALCCW.com moderator GunSlut:

CCWI just got off the phone with two gun attorneys. They agreed with his first thought. The above requirement is perfectly legal.

It goes back to illegal transportation of a handgun that is not registered to you. That is a automatic felony. The gun is registered to you, a wobbler. Felony or misdemeanor.

Greg explained that Orange County was the 1st to require this. That policy came out in 2000, he the one that set it up for Sheriff Carona at that time.

As much as Greg would have like to post this, he is away from the Board working on a very demanding project. He is trying to get California Shall issue by the end of the year. He just may pull it off.http://www.calccw.com/Forums/images/smilies/extra/yikes.gif

He called me to pass this on.

One SME and two gun lawyers agree. The thread is now closed.

Repeated emails to ask Greg what he was talking about, and asking for the names of the two "gun lawyers" he spoke with remain unanswered. It's sort of funny that for a project getting all of the California-counties shall-issue, none of the sheriff's offices that I have spoken with in the bay area, have even heard of Greg Block or who he is, or what project he's talking about. Now, I'm not one to accuse someone of lying straight off the bat in order to puff up one's credentials and drive business to his courses, but I've seen this progression in similar circumstances. I have little tolerance for secret squirrel crap and false recitations of OPSEC purely to protect themselves rather than open the process for everyone.

In fact, more postings from him indicate that Greg Block believes he owns the CCW issue in California, rather than playing well with others and being part of a team effort:

Response by Greg (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/11689-nordyke-hearing-today-3.html#post217267)

WTF? Who died and left you in charge?
I believe we have everything under control and you can watch the national news to see how we are doing.

Greg

National news? Purely made up.

Kestryll's post in response to Greg's apparent declaration that Greg owns the CCW issue in california: (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/11689-nordyke-hearing-today-4.html#post221548)

I don't think anyone is saying 'I'm in charge' at all.
Rather I think Brandon is saying 'We're working on many fronts with many resources on CCW and other 2A issues here in California.'

For those who don't know, Brandon is a member of Calguns.net, a member of the Board of Directors and Treasurer for the Calguns Foundation, an NRA and CRPA member, candidate for the CRPA Board of Directors and a staunch 2nd Amendment rights advocate.
As far as grassroots efforts are concerned Calguns.net has been a grassroots community for years but that was given a major focus a couple of years ago when Brandon came to me with the idea of an organized volunteer corp built out of and under the Calguns.net name. Brandon's idea, combined with his efforts and those of an incredibly talented core of C3 Leaders have made the Calguns C3 volunteers groups become a truly effective grassroots effort.

Shall issue CCW, removal of the AWB and magazine limits and the end of the 'safe handgun roster' are not going to come legislatively, they are going to be fought for and won in the court rooms and on a Constitutional basis.
CGF has filed suit over CCW issuance, the handgun roster and more and is working with not only the most successful 2A attorneys in California but Nationally as well as with SAF and CRPA on securing and restoring not only CCW rights but ALL 2A rights in California.


Frankly Greg I'm a bit surprised and even dismayed at your reaction to Brandon.
We're all working towards the same goal and we all have the same desire to see 2A rights and CCW restored in California. I really fail to see why it matter who or how many are working on achieving those goals nor do I see how it really matters who claims to be 'in charge'.
All of us have been fighting to preserve and restore our rights for a long time, decades in some cases, and frankly with few exceptions I can't think of any issue or time when anyone can claim to have had the situation 'under control'.

Nothing is 'under control' until such time as CCW permits are shall issue Statewide at minimum and not needed at all at best, there is no more of a waiting period here than anywhere else, no gun is forbidden because it looks 'scary', no manufacturer has to pay 'protection money' to the State to sell their product here and the word 'magazine' does not have a qualifier in front of it like 'high-cap', 'standard' or 'ten round'.

As mentioned, CGF has several irons in the fire, I'm sure you do too.
All things considered it might not be a bad idea to make sure we're not doubling up on effort or even working at cross purposes. If you'd like to PM me I can look at what you've got going, compare it to what CGF, SAF and CRPA is working on and see if there is any overlap.

Greg Responds to Kestryll (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/11689-nordyke-hearing-today-4.html#post221733)

"We all need to work together", and he dismisses Brandon's statements as youthful exuberence:

Paul,

I am not a admin so I do not have access to the junk bin. I asked a admin to PM a post or two that Brandon posted on this forum. They were pulled shorty after I posted what you quoted. I don't want to bring them to the surface again. I have been advised they were sent to you.

I think they were very poor taste and frankly Brandon should have known better. He and I spend a hour plus in my office talking one afternoon. I thought about it and passed it off a youth, exuberance and not thinking.

The forum is very focused on CCW's, that is the only area we are working very hard in. While I hope we have no overlap I'm sure we do or will. I reached out to Gene a day or two ago because of just that.

More than happy to make the drive and hook up with you for lunch or dinner, my treat. Just PM me when.

We do need to work together, both forums are fanatics groups of gun owners. Nov. 15, 2009 we proved that grass roots does work.

Warmly,
Greg

It seems rather nice at the end, but the beginning of it seems to presume that Brandon doesn't know what he's talking about. This sort of behavior by Greg Block (who owns the CalCCW.com website) festers this mentality of ownership over the carry issue which is not deserved. Greg Block's organization did not not silently flip Sacramento county to "self defense good cause", the CGF-led Sykes v. McGinness case did.

The more and more I look at this situation over time, the more I feel like that Greg is just purely making things up.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-21-2010, 4:13 PM
Interesting that the two links posted don't go anywhere...

One gives a 404 error and the other goes to a thread that seems to not exist on this site.

I did find the CalCCW thread and it seems that one of the members posted erroneous info, corrected by our own Gene Hoffman from here who was thanked by what appears to be CalCCW staff.

I wouldn't dump all over an entire site because a non-staff member posted bad info. Same here. I've seen bad info posted here that's corrected in that thread... and I've not seen much about smacking down this site because of it...

Well said CSD. And it should be noted, it was only one CalCCW member that posted the assertion that there have been "convictions". Let's not lump the bad egg with the good eggs.

wildhawker
10-21-2010, 4:16 PM
I'm sure the good eggs far outweigh the bad eggs. The problem is that some of the staff are the bad eggs.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-21-2010, 4:18 PM
but they will start openly helping people craft generic good cause statements for each county and will help shepherd even more new applicants through the process.



What makes you think that they do not already do this?!? Because I know (intimately) you are wrong if you believe what you wrote. With all respect to your past posts, this time you have generalized, too far.

Gray Peterson
10-21-2010, 4:21 PM
Well said CSD. And it should be noted, it was only one CalCCW member that posted the assertion that there have been "convictions". Let's not lump the bad egg with the good eggs.

Agreed, but my comments about Greg Block stand on it's own. He is the leader of that forum. He disrespects the work that members of this forum gave the cause for carry, and tells the folks who tell people to stand up against the statutory violations by sheriff's agencies to shut up and moderates them/bans them.

This is his right as he owns the domain and the forum. However, I have the right (subject to Kestryll's determination to allow to continue to exist, as this is his house) to make postings to call into question Greg Block's apparent false statements in order to "keep the prairie dogs in line" over at his forum. This encourages the behavior that Ron P is engaging in. I am holding both Ron P and Greg Block publicly accountable. If they stay silent in the face of these questions, that is on them.

Think about what would happen if Kes ever made that statement himself here. A lot of folks would go "WTF"?

I'm sure the good eggs far outweigh the bad eggs. The problem is that some of the staff are the bad eggs.

QFT.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-21-2010, 4:28 PM
Agreed, but my comments about Greg Block stand on it's own. He is the leader of that forum. He disrespects the work that members of this forum gave the cause for carry, and tells the folks who tell people to stand up against the statutory violations by sheriff's agencies to shut up and moderates them/bans them.

This is his right as he owns the domain and the forum. However, I have the right (subject to Kestryll's determination to allow to continue to exist, as this is his house) to make postings to call into question Greg Block's apparent false statements in order to "keep the prairie dogs in line" over at his forum. This encourages the behavior that Ron P is engaging in. I am holding both Ron P and Greg Block publicly accountable. If they stay silent in the face of these questions, that is on them.

Think about what would happen if Kes ever made that statement himself here. A lot of folks would go "WTF"?



QFT.

The rest of your comments aside, I believe that another forum member (not an employee or relative of) owns that site. Kes should know that.

An as to the personality clashes between you, Greg, and that site, hey, it's the internet. I can't immediately independently verify all that is said here or there, and lock into the truth, but it does seem to cut both ways, depending on the day, the sub-forum, and the moon. Maybe it's best we call it day and let each site do it's work. Anyone agree?

(heck, I've had my disagreements over there; and here)

GaryPowersLives
10-21-2010, 4:31 PM
Maybe it's best we call it day and let each site do it's work. Anyone agree?



Me three. Oh, wait, is it too early for that?

eaglemike
10-21-2010, 4:35 PM
Just wow!

If I read their"info" correctly, they are saying "transportation of an unregistered gun" is a wobbler??? I'm sure they meant handgun.... but come on. Transporting isn't the same as carrying concealed. IIRC the issue is carrying concealed of an unregistered gun without a permit to CCW. I can transport an unregistered handgun legally without issue - unless I meet up with an LEO that doesn't know the law (thinks every handgun must be registered).

Took a quick look at that forum - much more impressed with this place.
:)

boxbro
10-21-2010, 4:42 PM
I love how the guy makes a claim, and then when asked for proof, he tells the person he doesn't have time to do their research for them.

Gray Peterson
10-21-2010, 4:42 PM
The rest of your comments aside, I believe that another forum member (not an employee or relative of) owns that site. Kes should know that.

Don't know. My intel suggests otherwise. If it's wrong I'll gladly correct it, unlike some people.

An as to the personality clashes between you, Greg, and that site, hey, it's the internet. I can't immediately independently verify all that is said here or there, and lock into the truth, but it does seem to cut both ways, depending on the day, the sub-forum, and the moon. Maybe it's best we call it day and let each site do it's work. Anyone agree?

(heck, I've had my disagreements over there; and here)

Holding someone accountable for speaking untruths to their own forum membership is not a personality clash. Telling people that having an unregistered gun in the car is a felony in itself, and when told otherwise, clinging to two un-named "gun lawyers" which he refuses to name, is a sign of bad judgment and bad moral character in that it seems like he's purely making it all up. All to support Mike Carona's former policy that he had a part in drafting, ignoring the clear wording of GC53071 and PC12054(d). Putting those requirements in was pure politics and not law.

Sorry to be channelling Billy Jack here, but this plantation mentality where one must make everything registered and "err 100 percent of the side of caution" would have resulted in no OLL's and no bullet buttons, because everyone is afraid to cross the line. The core people of CGF were involved in those two things heavily, took the risks themselves rather than subjected anyone else to any criminal liability.

bwiese
10-21-2010, 4:48 PM
There is no requirement for handguns to be registered - unless the particular path/timing that they were acquired requires DROSiing or DOJ forms. And in that case, the problem is less that they weren't registered buy that they were acquired illegally.

I have a bag full of unregistered handguns - had 'em for years, family guns, guns I bought from dudes getting divorces in the 80s, etc.

I transport them to the range (locked/unloaded) and shoot the hell outta them.

There is no crime.

Period.

puropuro
10-21-2010, 4:48 PM
There's a lot of anger, hate, and resentment on this thread.

I'm happily a member of both boards, and am disappointed that now my friends over here are now taking shots at my friends over there. You have a disagreement with a person, statement, or assumption...fine. But why did you just take a shot at an entire community?

CalCCW has always been very courteous to newbies trying to get their CCW. They helped shepherd me through the process successfully. I've never read any disparaging comments about Calguns there, and even when they comment on disagreements with folks like TBJ and their philosophies, it's still VERY civil and chalked up to "agreements to disagree".

Infighting is not what we need since, in the end, we really are trying to go in the same direction. Better yet, why don't we focus our displeasure on the anti's and those that would take away our rights instead of shots across the bow at others that want the same thing, but go at it a different way.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-21-2010, 4:49 PM
Don't know. My intel suggests otherwise. If it's wrong I'll gladly correct it, unlike some people. But I do know; I've had many a lunch with this guy. Not trying to be right, just that I do know.



Holding someone accountable for speaking untruths to their own forum membership is not a personality clash. Telling people that having an unregistered gun in the car is a felony in itself, and when told otherwise, clinging to two un-named "gun lawyers" which he refuses to name, is a sign of bad judgment and bad moral character in that it seems like he's purely making it all up. All to support Mike Carona's former policy that he had a part in drafting, ignoring the clear wording of GC53071 and PC12054(d).

Taking a very educated guess, I probably know of who one of the attorneys is, and he is a well respected firearms attorney who I am sure is well known by the CGf.

Further, and take it from me as personal experience, attorneys do not like advice or counsel be used third hand, so absent a face to face discussion with this one attorney, Greg is most likely honoring that request (that he not use the attorney's name in third hand situations).

But, I'll let my end of this die. It's not really my bailiwick.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-21-2010, 4:50 PM
Infighting is not what we need since, in the end, we really are trying to go in the same direction. Better yet, why don't we focus our displeasure on the anti's and those that would take away our rights instead of shots across the bow at others that want the same thing, but go at it a different way.

Now, where's the fun in that?!? :D:p

Gray Peterson
10-21-2010, 4:54 PM
There's a lot of anger, hate, and resentment on this thread.

I'm happily a member of both boards, and am disappointed that now my friends over here are now taking shots at my friends over there. You have a disagreement with a person, statement, or assumption...fine. But why did you just take a shot at an entire community?

I said "Calccw.com member". Also, the moderation staff has been quite discourteous towards me and Brandon, banning us from the forum when we told them that requirements for registration are illegal and violative of one court case and two different statutes, purely to protect the bad work product that Mike Carona created which spread throughout the state like a virus.

CalCCW has always been very courteous to newbies trying to get their CCW. They helped shepherd me through the process successfully. I've never read any disparaging comments about Calguns there, and even when they comment on disagreements with folks like TBJ and their philosophies, it's still VERY civil and chalked up to "agreements to disagree".

Infighting is not what we need since, in the end, we really are trying to go in the same direction. Better yet, why don't we focus our displeasure on the anti's and those that would take away our rights instead of shots across the bow at others that want the same thing, but go at it a different way.

I cannot abide by individuals who claim that CGN and CGF's activities have resulted in convictions of people for OLL's and bullet buttons (verifiably false). I also cannot abide falsehoods involving law.

eaglemike
10-21-2010, 4:55 PM
There is no requirement for handguns to be registered - unless the particular path/timing that they were acquired requires DROSiing or DOJ forms. And in that case, the problem is less that they weren't registered buy that they were acquired illegally.

I have a bag full of unregistered handguns - had 'em for years, family guns, guns I bought from dudes getting divorces in the 80s, etc.

I transport them to the range (locked/unloaded) and shoot the hell outta them.

There is no crime.

Period.
This ^^^^^
I just don't understand how someone that is assuming a role of authority there would make the posts/statements about this being a "wobbler." I know it's the "interwebz" but (as the late great John Wooden would say) "goodness gracious sakes alive."

Gray Peterson
10-21-2010, 4:59 PM
Taking a very educated guess, I probably know of who one of the attorneys is, and he is a well respected firearms attorney who I am sure is well known by the CGf.



I seriously doubt that, and only a bad attorney would never make a statement like that to anyone that is so obviously false that would be malpractice. Sorry, a CGF hired and or/well known lawyer giving that advice? I ask again: Why is Greg banning people for criticizing the fruits of Carona's faulty work product?

Kestryll
10-21-2010, 5:24 PM
Okay, Gene has corrected the poster and swept away the FUD regarding CGF's efforts and what has really been said here on CGN.
It was one poster representing a point of view.

Let's not turn this in to a 'forum war', that serve no one but those trying to curtail our rights.

CGN and CalCCW have differing focuses and differing methodology but both are working towards the same big picture. Let's keep that in mind and work on defeating the people who want to remove our rights instead of on defeating each other.