PDA

View Full Version : Dear NRA complainers


tankerman
07-01-2006, 7:59 PM
Dear NRA complainers,
The NRA is not perfect, no organization or person is, expecting them to handle every concern that every gun owner has is not realistic. I have not always been pleased with everything they have done, however I do recognize that they have more stroke than any other organization and they do support the overall firearm ownership agenda. Sitting back and *****ing about the NRA because our local politicians have screwed us is ridiculous. They can not overturn every law that you disagree with and don't have the resources to do so. Also, it was not started to only handle political issues, it serves a wider role supporting shooting sports and education in most all areas. Constitutional rights are central to every political concern facing us, to expect the NRA to be the answer to all our problems is absurb. It seems by reading many threads that more people are concerned that "Wally's World don't sell nomo cheap ammo", who gives a crap, they could care less about you.

Financially support some type of gun ownership organization, write letters something. Screw Walmart trust me they only care about your rights if it benefits their bottom line.
The "Dear NRA" bit is not witty dude.

chickenfried
07-01-2006, 8:06 PM
Started out good. But would've been better without the Walmart/ammo end rant. :p

-hanko
07-01-2006, 8:08 PM
Just for you since you enjoy it so much. I think it's rather pithy.;)
I wouldn't worry, more than a few posts in the last month and a half have reassured us that the NRA continues "to work behind the scenes" in SAC to keep us from any further anti-"AW" legislation.:rolleyes:

-hanko

tankerman
07-01-2006, 8:23 PM
I agree I should have left off the Walmart rant, my panties were all up in a bunch at the time.

As for the other guy rambling about the NRA working behind the scene. obviously has a difficult time in reading comprehension.

Pithy? Far from concise

tankerman
07-01-2006, 9:42 PM
Anything;) for you sweetie

Ford8N
07-02-2006, 7:27 AM
Dear NRA complainers,
The NRA is not perfect, no organization or person is, expecting them to handle every concern that every gun owner has is not realistic. I have not always been pleased with everything they have done, however I do recognize that they have more stroke than any other organization and they do support the overall firearm ownership agenda. Sitting back and *****ing about the NRA because our local politicians have screwed us is ridiculous. They can not overturn every law that you disagree with and don't have the resources to do so. Also, it was not started to only handle political issues, it serves a wider role supporting shooting sports and education in most all areas. Constitutional rights are central to every political concern facing us, to expect the NRA to be the answer to all our problems is absurb. It seems by reading many threads that more people are concerned that "Wally's World don't sell nomo cheap ammo", who gives a crap, they could care less about you.

Financially support some type of gun ownership organization, write letters something. Screw Walmart trust me they only care about your rights if it benefits their bottom line.
The "Dear NRA" bit is not witty dude.


I'll support the NRA but sometimes I wonder if they pick and choose their battles. How come a couple of regular guys open up the ability to buy OLL's a few months ago. Where has the NRA been all that time?

Now is the time for the NRA to put the full force of the organization against these flimsy AW laws. If a couple of people can exploit the law and allow the sale of receivers again in this state, imagine what the NRA could do if they at least try. I'll be watching what they do about this change in definitions and the new AW law change.

6172crew
07-02-2006, 7:50 AM
I'll support the NRA but sometimes I wonder if they pick and choose their battles. How come a couple of regular guys open up the ability to buy OLL's a few months ago. Where has the NRA been all that time?

Now is the time for the NRA to put the full force of the organization against these flimsy AW laws. If a couple of people can exploit the law and allow the sale of receivers again in this state, imagine what the NRA could do if they at least try. I'll be watching what they do about this change in definitions and the new AW law change.

+1, I hope they arent slow to come to the Aug17 DOj meeting and bring a can of whoop nonono with them.

tankerman
07-02-2006, 8:00 AM
I think that sometimes they may be concerned about public opinion and may worry if they try to fight a battle such as the trying stop the states ability to regulate items that are deemed to be public hazards, that they may see some public backlash. And that may force some politicians away from the cause.Also, I find it interesting that so much is devoted to semi auto "assault weapons", why isn't everyone up in arms about not being able to buy full autos or rpg's , tanks etc...
Are they not tools of a well armed militia? I am not advocating widespread ownership of these items, just trying to make a point. People make decisions on which issues legal issues to fight and so do organizations. If the NRA is not representing your opinions then find one that does or start one of your own. Constant complaining solves nothing.

Ford8N
07-02-2006, 8:25 AM
I think that sometimes they may be concerned about public opinion and may worry if they try to fight a battle such as the trying stop the states ability to regulate items that are deemed to be public hazards, that they may see some public backlash. And that may force some politicians away from the cause.Also, I find it interesting that so much is devoted to semi auto "assault weapons", why isn't everyone up in arms about not being able to buy full autos or rpg's , tanks etc...
Are they not tools of a well armed militia? I am not advocating widespread ownership of these items, just trying to make a point. People make decisions on which issues legal issues to fight and so do organizations. If the NRA is not representing your opinions then find one that does or start one of your own. Constant complaining solves nothing.

I have no need for a RPG or tank. ;) :D

As far as public backlash...sometimes you need to fight the good fight. Even if you don't get everything you want, you can push back something and get another open registration period.

6172crew
07-02-2006, 11:20 AM
I'd like to pipe in as one who's been rather critical of the NRA. I do see the value of the NRA, and I believe they've been very active in promoting responsible gun ownership on a national level, and promoting our Constitutional rights in the same vein.

I do wish they would take a more aggressive, pro-active stance in California, mainly because I believe that California is the 'front line' of the firearms debate. I think that those of us who are firearms owners in California are 'trapped behind enemy lines', so to speak.

As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. Here is where the fight is...and we are losing, folks.

Id like to address some of your concerns, as Mike Haas has pointed out we are the only state with a full time lobbyist worked for our rights, we probably have the least amount of $$ from a state going to the NRA (per capita) and even when the NRA fights full on they still pass SF handgun laws.

Im guessing by the sound out it you arent a member of the NRA or else you would have just called the phone number on the back of your card and asked Ed W. what we have on our plate instead of baskhing them on the net.

BTW your sig line has false info in it, we do use the "instant background check" but the CA lawmakers have you wait until 10 days before you can pick the firearm up. The dealer will know within a few minutes if teh DROS wont go through.

chris
07-02-2006, 11:27 AM
I'd like to pipe in as one who's been rather critical of the NRA. I do see the value of the NRA, and I believe they've been very active in promoting responsible gun ownership on a national level, and promoting our Constitutional rights in the same vein.

I do wish they would take a more aggressive, pro-active stance in California, mainly because I believe that California is the 'front line' of the firearms debate. I think that those of us who are firearms owners in California are 'trapped behind enemy lines', so to speak.

As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. Here is where the fight
is...and we are losing, folks.

i agreee with Mrex on this we are the front lines of this battle for rights we should not have to fight for but we are. the NRA is very important nationaly and locally. i have had memberships in the NRA and CRPA. i left the NRA because i like to to deal with the state issues we have. allthough my membership in the CRPA has lapsed due to my deplyment but it will be renewed when i get home. debating a life membership, nonetheless i will rejoin it. the true fact in this is california gun owners are to blame for our situation. for too long have they sat by and let the state tell the what firearms they can have. they vote with their wallet and not their heart. they vote for the jobs they have and not their heart again. it is these gun owners who are at fault not the ones here or in the CRPA, NRA or GOC. we are active gun owners. the gun owners who sit on their butts on election day are at fault.

we all need to participate in the political process. if not we will lose big and the rest of the nation will follow. it will embolden the politicians who want to destroy this most cherished right we have. if we do not fight here where will we fight? when we talk about the good ol' times when you could own a firearm. a discussion like that may have to be in secret as the rest of rights are trampeled to the ground. also we owe the people who have fought at died for these rights. who are we to let these rights fall and let those brave men and women die for nothing.

we must fight and fight we will if we stand together we can win. if we let them divide us we will most certaintly fall. divide and conquer guys it is the oldest tatic in warfare.

so join in the numbers of any organization. we must join our numbers is their strenth.

tankerman
07-02-2006, 2:04 PM
Id like to address some of your concerns, as Mike Haas has pointed out we are the only state with a full time lobbyist worked for our rights, we probably have the least amount of $$ from a state going to the NRA (per capita) and even when the NRA fights full on they still pass SF handgun laws.

Im guessing by the sound out it you arent a member of the NRA or else you would have just called the phone number on the back of your card and asked Ed W. what we have on our plate instead of baskhing them on the net.

BTW your sig line has false info in it, we do use the "instant background check" but the CA lawmakers have you wait until 10 days before you can pick the firearm up. The dealer will know within a few minutes if teh DROS wont go through.
According to the NRA spokesperson at the last Friends of the NRA function I attended, Californians contribute more and have more members than any other state. I don't know if thats true or just a [B]FEEL GOOD/B]statement. I believe there are a lot more hardcore lifers out there than most would think, wealthy folks that contribute but keep there opinions to themselves. Safari clubers, high-end collectors and such.

Dont Tread on Me
07-02-2006, 9:03 PM
Firearms owners need to get out and vote. Our own apathy is our worst enemy.

Wow, this should go on a t-shirt!

For a general answer to the question of what the NRA is up to go to your local NRA council meeting to find out what is going on. You will be surprised.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/

-hanko
07-03-2006, 7:12 AM
I As for the other guy rambling about the NRA working behind the scene. obviously has a difficult time in reading comprehension.

But apparently not with capitalization and sentence structure.

The 'behind the scenes' thing has been stated on this forum enough to end up being a phrase for 'trust us' (and continue to send in those dollars).

You can help by quantifying just what the nra has done so far to ease the "aw" issues in the state. I've apparently missed their statement on the oll lower issue, the 'ability to accept magazines' issue, and probably a dozen others (but I'll leave you with just the two I've noted as I don't like to ramble;)

I'm currently a life member, in the last 6 years I've also donated a bunch of $$ above and beyond the life membership.

Membership council for the prk is right on top of things...no mention of the August doj meeting, but at least they're updated to mid-June this year.

If nothing's going on re: NRA and oll, you can pm me if you'd like.

thanks

-hanko

Dont Tread on Me
07-03-2006, 7:35 AM
The 'behind the scenes' thing has been stated on this forum enough to end up being a phrase for 'trust us' (and continue to send in those dollars).

You can help by quantifying just what the nra has done so far to ease the "aw" issues in the state.

It is not a "trust us" thing. Go to your local NRA members meeting to find out. Attendance is free but you will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Would you really want the NRA's strategy on everything laid out nice and neatly in a public forum that anybody can read? Can you imagine what our left leaning media in CA would do with it? We are in a chess game and you don't publish your next ten moves!

The NRA's position on the OLL issue is public. They are _not_ going to encourage weapons to be banned - remember "assult weapon" is an anti-gun term. They are rather fighting in this state to "relax" the assult weapon laws. The NRA is, however, prepared to fight any illegal activty by the DOJ. The first memo was pulled after the NRA made it clear to the DOJ that it would fight the new CAT 4.

CalNRA
07-03-2006, 4:34 PM
They are _not_ going to encourage weapons to be banned - remember "assult weapon" is an anti-gun term.

that's the problem I have with numerous members of Calguns, these guys are HOPING to get their guns banned so they can register their toys as assault weapons. kinda weird ain't it?

6172crew
07-03-2006, 4:48 PM
that's the problem I have with numerous members of Calguns, these guys are HOPING to get their guns banned so they can register their toys as assault weapons. kinda weird ain't it?

Im all for overturning the AW ban here, and Im sure the Fresno DA lawsuit that teh NRA is claiming to be a part of will help but when we first started buying these lowers there was a chance we would be able to reg then build them. The list the AG is to keep up had a lyer of dust on it and I wanted to knock it off. If you wanted a Cali-legal lower they have been available for many years at no risk of being banned so it wasnt like we were trying to screw over any gun owners here and as a mater of fact Ive went out of my way to find eveyone I can to buy a lower. Not top mention we could get a new lower made each week as are underground lower buying couldnt be stopped unless teh change the law.
Havent herd much from the NRA, "kinda weird ain't it?":rolleyes:

CalNRA
07-03-2006, 5:20 PM
Im all for overturning the AW ban here, and Im sure the Fresno DA lawsuit that teh NRA is claiming to be a part of will help but when we first started buying these lowers there was a chance we would be able to reg then build them. The list the AG is to keep up had a lyer of dust on it and I wanted to knock it off. If you wanted a Cali-legal lower they have been available for many years at no risk of being banned so it wasnt like we were trying to screw over any gun owners here and as a mater of fact Ive went out of my way to find eveyone I can to buy a lower. Not top mention we could get a new lower made each week as are underground lower buying couldnt be stopped unless teh change the law.
Havent herd much from the NRA, "kinda weird ain't it?":rolleyes:

I haven't bought any lowers because I don't have the time and cash to build ARs(way too much money tied up in cost of schooling), and I am very glad there are people like you Vince who are providing the oppotunity for others to enjoy that aspect of highpower rifles. But you gotta admit the irony in gun-owners pressuring the DOJ to BAN lowers, which defies conventional logic. On one hand you got the socialist public breathing down our necks to ban every gun we own, then we have other gun owners pressuring the authorities to ban the guns they already own. When you have two different sides essentially conveying the same message(Albeit for vastly different reasons), and we wonder why the DOJ is so insolate and thinks it can get away with the crap that it pulls!! THey know that some of us will sacrifice our rights to own toys and be the only kid on the block to own one, even if it means registering it and have to succumb to all the legal ramifications associated with a registered AW. but for some, as long as they got their "evil" lookig black rifle, they can care less what that registration means.

Look, we can sit here and have a blame-contest on who's worse, NRA members who don't care much for the ARs or the AR owners who blame the NRA for not going after the DOJ with a frontal assault. That ain't gonna solve anything. All I said was, I did not like the fact that some gun owners want their lowers to be banned just so they can build their toys. Nothing more, nothing less. So please don't take it as a personal attack. I saw a comment that I agreed with, and for me it was logical.

Now back to the regularly scheduled on-topic discussion.

6172crew
07-03-2006, 7:35 PM
I haven't bought any lowers because I don't have the time and cash to build ARs(way too much money tied up in cost of schooling), and I am very glad there are people like you Vince who are providing the oppotunity for others to enjoy that aspect of highpower rifles. But you gotta admit the irony in gun-owners pressuring the DOJ to BAN lowers, which defies conventional logic. On one hand you got the socialist public breathing down our necks to ban every gun we own, then we have other gun owners pressuring the authorities to ban the guns they already own. When you have two different sides essentially conveying the same message(Albeit for vastly different reasons), and we wonder why the DOJ is so insolate and thinks it can get away with the crap that it pulls!! THey know that some of us will sacrifice our rights to own toys and be the only kid on the block to own one, even if it means registering it and have to succumb to all the legal ramifications associated with a registered AW. but for some, as long as they got their "evil" lookig black rifle, they can care less what that registration means.

Look, we can sit here and have a blame-contest on who's worse, NRA members who don't care much for the ARs or the AR owners who blame the NRA for not going after the DOJ with a frontal assault. That ain't gonna solve anything. All I said was, I did not like the fact that some gun owners want their lowers to be banned just so they can build their toys. Nothing more, nothing less. So please don't take it as a personal attack. I saw a comment that I agreed with, and for me it was logical.

Now back to the regularly scheduled on-topic discussion.

The fight isnt with you and my frustration is showing. We had a great plan to have egg on the AGs face and he is being a weasel by not listing. There will always be lowers in this state (until they change the law). We have a fantastic network that even if they did list a new lower could (and would) be made every 6 months or so. So Im not about banning anything as Im in for the list as a way for us to know the rules and play by them. As far as you not having the $$ to get a lower I dont kbnow what to say other than you must have other toys on your want list as these only cost $200 and you can make that mowing lawns these days.

Semper Fi!;)

CalNRA
07-03-2006, 9:55 PM
As far as you not having the $$ to get a lower I dont kbnow what to say other than you must have other toys on your want list as these only cost $200 and you can make that mowing lawns these days.

Semper Fi!;)

I see your point.

BTW it's not the 200 dollars for a frame, it's what else it will cost, as many have pointed out a good AR would cost 800+, and the ammo, and such. I don't wanna buy a frame and have it sit around gather dust. Plus the cost of going to college in California isn't cheap these days if you catch my drift. It would be very weird to be stopped by the school Police(I live very near campus) with an AR in my trunk, regardless of legality it would be a strip-search senerio in a college town, and the risk of getting kicked out of school for being in court isn't what I need at this point in my life.

heck in the last year I spent over 2k in guns. But being in school there is no way in hell I'm gonna talk to the DA about why I have a "illegal assault weapon", that's grounds for expulsion regardless of I'm guilty or not.

chris
07-03-2006, 11:42 PM
for the life of me i cannot understand why anyone wants the DOJ to list. it will add more fuel for them to take away more firearms in the future CalNRA has stated this in his post also read my post that i wrote. we are our own worst enemy. we have gun owners who like to shoot skeet and care less about AR's, we have SASSI shooters who don't care about the AR's either, we have bench shooters who use bolt action rifles they don't care either. the .50 ban should wake them up. there is the crowd that says "well they aren't taking the guns i use so i don't care".
this is just a generalization of the gun owners in this state.

dammit guys we need to pull our heads out of our collective *****es and work toegther. but for now concentrate on going to this hearing in august. someone has posted they think no one will show up. well prove them wrong show up people and make a stand here or be ready to take it in the rear later this year or next year.

politicians fear us for what we own so they want them all. show up and tell them we will not stand for this crap. show them that ALL gun owners are tired of this crap. i for one is tired of this crap streaming out of sacramento.

also think of all the men and women who have died for the rights bequeathed to us. especially on this day 4th of July the birth of a nation the world never saw at the time and to this day. i cannot be there for i'am fighting for the rights of ALL Americans. i will rejoin this fight when i get back home.

xenophobe
07-04-2006, 1:04 AM
First, let me say that I support the NRA in general, I think they do a lot of great work, and have done so in the past. I could not see a future without the NRA, and do thank them dearly and have with contributions directly to the NRA-ILA.

But the situation here, and lately have been pretty absurd... And I'm going to say things that the NRA Worshipers won't like one bit. YES, NRA WORSHIPERS... the ones who are mindless rhetoric spewing zombies, the Fundamentalist NRA Clerics who just repeat whatever the NRA feeds them. If you fall under this label and don't realize it, you will after reading what's next...

1) Listing will provide legal protection from ambiguity in laws. Is it legal, isn't it legal? Listing would define legality issues for current owners.

2) Assault weapons have already been banned. Get over this. AR-15 and AK-47 SERIES firearms, and even their frames have already been banned for over 6 years now, are banned by legislative intent, and receivers now are only legal because of a court that overrulled part of a law.

3) Without listing in combination with new legislation and regulatory modification the DOJ may make these ambiguously 'legal' firearms illegal. If this turns out to be the case, 30,000 guns don't just become 'assualt weapons', they could become instant contraband and may require uncompensated confiscation or destruction. If this were to happen, like the SKS Sporters with detachable magazines that the DOJ previously wavered on, the NRA should be held responsible for not doing what should be done.

4) Progressive Liberals do not need more incentive to ban more guns. That's what they want to do. Listing or not listing will not give them more or less fuel to do this. THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION!



...no way in hell I'm gonna talk to the DA about why I have a "illegal assault weapon", that's grounds for expulsion regardless of I'm guilty or not.

This is what tens of thousands of people are worried about. Not listing allows these unregulated assault weapons (DOJ opinion, Legislative Intent, etc) to stay in this cloud of "is this legal, is this illegal" and keeping the owners of these rifles scared, and in jeopardy of being criminals and ruining their lives. Yet listing will offer them the option of keeping them and not having to worry about their configuration and of what any particular DA might say.

The NRA is against removing ambiguity in the law concerning this, and the NRA is against owners of these off list rifles from having the features these rifles were designed to operate with, and the NRA is against giving the current owners of these firearms the safety and security against possible prosecution, and harm from the potential saftey issues of fixed magazines in these rifles.

The NRA would rather give DOJ more control over EVERY SINGLE HANDGUN TRANSACTION, but scoff at making a dealer put a poster up.

At any given time, sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong. The NRA has done some wrong lately, and hearing people, especially those involved directly with the NRA fail to admit or even deny that they could be wrong, makes me sick to my stomach. Everybody makes mistakes, and I can respect when that happens and the responsible party can admit it. But when they start playing politics and lying about it is where I lose respect and start to wonder that they can think so highly of themselves that even when they're wrong they're right.... It just makes me lose total respect. That's why certain NRA pundits here are on my blocked list. I can't see what they post, and I don't really give a flying F, because they're not honest enough to admit when they might have possibly been wrong, and that in my book is dishonesty. I can't handle liars, even if they are on the right side, and even if their intentions are good. Dishonesty is dishonesty and in times of dire trust, I can't trust them.

Absolutely ludicrous.

AND I just want to reiterate, I think the NRA has done more for gun rights and education than all other sources combined and they continue to fight the good fight, but that does NOT mean that they are incapable of doing no wrong, and that doesn't mean that valid critisim should be swept under the rug and forgotten. It should be noted and acknowledged because without admitting or having the realization that one may have been wrong in the past will certainly lead them to do it again in the future.

chris
07-04-2006, 2:43 AM
the real point of this thread should focus on the reality that we gun-owners are in peril and need help in many forms. some people are blind to ideas others are asking for them to list. our state is in dire need of fixing we need to show in mass on election day and send a strong message to these *****clowns in sacramento.

Ford8N
07-04-2006, 6:23 AM
First, let me say that I support the NRA in general, I think they do a lot of great work, and have done so in the past. I could not see a future without the NRA, and do thank them dearly and have with contributions directly to the NRA-ILA.

But the situation here, and lately have been pretty absurd... And I'm going to say things that the NRA Worshipers won't like one bit. YES, NRA WORSHIPERS... the ones who are mindless rhetoric spewing zombies, the Fundamentalist NRA Clerics who just repeat whatever the NRA feeds them. If you fall under this label and don't realize it, you will after reading what's next...

1) Listing will provide legal protection from ambiguity in laws. Is it legal, isn't it legal? Listing would define legality issues for current owners.

2) Assault weapons have already been banned. Get over this. AR-15 and AK-47 SERIES firearms, and even their frames have already been banned for over 6 years now, are banned by legislative intent, and receivers now are only legal because of a court that overrulled part of a law.

3) Without listing in combination with new legislation and regulatory modification the DOJ may make these ambiguously 'legal' firearms illegal. If this turns out to be the case, 30,000 guns don't just become 'assualt weapons', they could become instant contraband and may require uncompensated confiscation or destruction. If this were to happen, like the SKS Sporters with detachable magazines that the DOJ previously wavered on, the NRA should be held responsible for not doing what should be done.

4) Progressive Liberals do not need more incentive to ban more guns. That's what they want to do. Listing or not listing will not give them more or less fuel to do this. THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION!





This is what tens of thousands of people are worried about. Not listing allows these unregulated assault weapons (DOJ opinion, Legislative Intent, etc) to stay in this cloud of "is this legal, is this illegal" and keeping the owners of these rifles scared, and in jeopardy of being criminals and ruining their lives. Yet listing will offer them the option of keeping them and not having to worry about their configuration and of what any particular DA might say.

The NRA is against removing ambiguity in the law concerning this, and the NRA is against owners of these off list rifles from having the features these rifles were designed to operate with, and the NRA is against giving the current owners of these firearms the safety and security against possible prosecution, and harm from the potential saftey issues of fixed magazines in these rifles.

The NRA would rather give DOJ more control over EVERY SINGLE HANDGUN TRANSACTION, but scoff at making a dealer put a poster up.

At any given time, sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong. The NRA has done some wrong lately, and hearing people, especially those involved directly with the NRA fail to admit or even deny that they could be wrong, makes me sick to my stomach. Everybody makes mistakes, and I can respect when that happens and the responsible party can admit it. But when they start playing politics and lying about it is where I lose respect and start to wonder that they can think so highly of themselves that even when they're wrong they're right.... It just makes me lose total respect. That's why certain NRA pundits here are on my blocked list. I can't see what they post, and I don't really give a flying F, because they're not honest enough to admit when they might have possibly been wrong, and that in my book is dishonesty. I can't handle liars, even if they are on the right side, and even if their intentions are good. Dishonesty is dishonesty and in times of dire trust, I can't trust them.

Absolutely ludicrous.

AND I just want to reiterate, I think the NRA has done more for gun rights and education than all other sources combined and they continue to fight the good fight, but that does NOT mean that they are incapable of doing no wrong, and that doesn't mean that valid critisim should be swept under the rug and forgotten. It should be noted and acknowledged because without admitting or having the realization that one may have been wrong in the past will certainly lead them to do it again in the future.


Good points xeno. I'll include them in my letter. OLL are sort of in a grey area legally and have no 'Official" status. Are they or are they not "evil" in this state.

dhl
07-04-2006, 12:43 PM
Doe's anyone know what happened to the NRA Members' Council East-Ventura County? I know that a few years ago they voted to disband and become a political gun-rights group. Is there an NRA Members' Council East Valley anymore? I checked their website and I got the feeling of it being virtualy abandoned but, someone keep's it going. So, maybe they are trying to re-form as a NRA Members' Council again?

Happy Fourth of July!

Joe


Wow, this should go on a t-shirt!

For a general answer to the question of what the NRA is up to go to your local NRA council meeting to find out what is going on. You will be surprised.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/

tcrpe
07-04-2006, 12:51 PM
that's the problem I have with numerous members of Calguns, these guys are HOPING to get their guns banned so they can register their toys as assault weapons. kinda weird ain't it?

I don't agree with your assessent of this situation.

It's a given that California ignores Federal law, we just would like them to stop ignoring California law. . . .

6172crew
07-04-2006, 12:54 PM
Sure would be nice to update the website every few years.:D

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/

Under SB23 the last note is from 2000, seems to me we are still making news along those lines.:p

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit.shtml

Says "Newsflash!" and its dated 1999

Talkin2u2
07-04-2006, 7:54 PM
Sure would be nice to update the website every few years.:D

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/

Under SB23 the last note is from 2000, seems to me we are still making news along those lines.:p

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit.shtml

Says "Newsflash!" and its dated 1999


That's probably why they put "The information found on this page is for archival and informational purposes only. Due to the age of this material, it should not be used as a legal interpretation or for legal advice of any kind. Please refer to www.CalGunLaws.com for legal information. " on several of their old archival pages.

Maybe there is some benefit to keeping older pages on the site. For referrence material??

It does show that the NRA has been involved in the fight for California for a long time though. Oops! I might be called an "NRA WORSHIPER" for making a statement like that. :D

Ricki Stevens

6172crew
07-04-2006, 11:00 PM
That's probably why they put "The information found on this page is for archival and informational purposes only. Due to the age of this material, it should not be used as a legal interpretation or for legal advice of any kind. Please refer to www.CalGunLaws.com for legal information. " on several of their old archival pages.

Maybe there is some benefit to keeping older pages on the site. For referrence material??

It does show that the NRA has been involved in the fight for California for a long time though. Oops! I might be called an "NRA WORSHIPER" for making a statement like that. :D

Ricki Stevens

We need a calgunner to keep a updated webpage, even the calgunlaws.com page doesnt show the info about the public forum in Sac AUG16th. Of course nothing can replace Ramons website for up to date info.:)

tankerman
07-05-2006, 8:38 AM
xenophobe,
Neil Knox you are not. Listing would create a permant 'feel' to existing AW laws. I doubt that is the long term goal af the NRA. Calling people "zombies, worshipers and clerics" is just rhetoric of your own,to gain support from the perpetually paranoid crowd. 'Xenophobe' is the perfect vocabulary word for this discussion

mikehaas
07-05-2006, 8:43 AM
Sure would be nice to update the website every few years.:D

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/

Under SB23 the last note is from 2000, seems to me we are still making news along those lines.:p

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit.shtml

Says "Newsflash!" and its dated 1999
Guys, I'm here - I post all the time. I'm webmaster for the site, have said so repeatedly. You can address questions to the 'Contact Us' link on the site and I'll look into it. (it's much better than here becasue I don't check here as often or as thoroughly.)

I've received the query about the status of the East Ventura MC (both here and across the website) and want to know the score before we reply. Ventura is 400 miles away so it's not an MC I am directly involved with. And I need to coordinate with the NRA staff administrator to find out if the MC is reforming or what. Remember, the legislature is on break and it's been a long weekend - let's give staff a chance to catch their breath.

I think the issue about "Newsflash" has been addressed by calgun members that saw the archival disclaimer.

There is not more info about the OLL developments because currently, it is not a legislative issue (bill), it is a DOJ issue. NRA has been deeply involved with the OLL issue since before it BECAME an issue and working it behind the scenes. Accordingly, it is NOT an issue that the Members' Councils have been focused on and you won't find anything on the site about it unless they tell me to put it there.

Of course they know about all DOJ meetings and no, they are not supportive of banning MORE guns in CA (extending Roberti-Roos or allowing DOJ to create new classes of AWs). Some here support that so they can open a new registration period - they are willingly being complicit in banning more guns and agreeing with the government that we need special "AW" designations (in reality, you just want your own ugly gun). We have to think about our kids and our kids' kids. For all the talk I hear about being tough on gun-rights, only NRA seems to be standing firm for the Second Amendment in this situation.

But those 40,000+ OLLs now in circulation are a very good thing indeed, but to bear fruit, we definitely need NRA behind those scenes. Now, you really don't WANT me posting NRA's thinking here or on any website, do you?

Mike

mikehaas
07-05-2006, 9:08 AM
And FYI, I'm also webmaster for NRA's attorneys, Trutanich-Michel...
http://www.trutanichmichel.com/
(the crew that just beat San Franciso!)

Some here know it surely, but a few years ago Chuck (Michel) created...
http://calgunlaws.com/
...to help get the 'legal' word out to those interested in the technical side of these issues. So a lot is dry legalese (target audience is other attorneys), but we do have a summry list of documents that pertain to "AW"s in CA in the homepage and some are less technical. This one seems to be popular these days:
http://calgunlaws.com/article-453.html

Legislatively, legally, NRA is trying to put the word out. Now Calguns.net too, since NRA has come to appreciate us working together on the bills.

But the bashing just isn't productive, folks.

Mike
(also webmaster for http://ammoguide.com/, http://nrawinningteam.com/, http://fiftycal.org/, http://fcsa.org/, http://cafr.biz/, http://projectboresnake.org/, http://www.cobrapistols.com/ and http://patriotboxers.com/ and if I forgot anybody I'M SORRY!)

xenophobe
07-05-2006, 9:32 AM
Listing would create a permant 'feel' to existing AW laws.

How old are you? Three long gun bans (DWCL '89, SB-23, AB50), one handgun ban later (SB-15), and you don't think there is a 'permanent feel' to existing AW laws? You've got to be kidding me.



Calling people "zombies, worshipers and clerics" is just rhetoric of your own,to gain support from the perpetually paranoid crowd.

If the shoe fits...

Explain to me how supporting more DOJ control over each and every new handgun purchase is more acceptable than forcing a dealer to put up a warning poster...

*grabs the popcorn*

Of course, you don't have any valid responses to any of my points, otherwise you would have made them, eh? :rolleyes:

DSA_FAL
07-05-2006, 10:59 AM
There is not more info about the OLL developments because currently, it is not a legislative issue (bill), it is a DOJ issue. NRA has been deeply involved with the OLL issue since before it BECAME an issue and working it behind the scenes. Accordingly, it is NOT an issue that the Members' Councils have been focused on and you won't find anything on the site about it unless they tell me to put it there.

AB 2728 would change the law so that a stripped receiver would be considered a firearm in the context of AW laws. This combined with the DOJ's proposed changes to 978.20 would effectively end the importation of OLLs and outs existing ones in a very legally questionable state. So, it is both a legislative and DOJ issue. Also, the http://www.calnra.com/ website needs to be updated to show the latest amendments to that bill. It should also be opposed not just watched.

tankerman
07-05-2006, 11:36 AM
Your just hot because laws were passed that you don't like, WOW imagine that, in this country, no way. There are lots of laws that I don't like, but I don't BASH the organizations that are supporting my interests. It is not possible for any organization to have total control over what politicians do, the people of this state elected them, those politicians appointed judges etc... I am amazed that you need this explained to you.
By the way I am 36 years old with two children and have lived in this state my entire life. I have watch this CA. move into an almost intolerable state, a socialist beauracracy, it's to the point of embarrasment when traveling out of state and having to explain what the hell is going on here.

My son is almost three and even he is figuring out that everything does not always work out the way he wants,and that kicking and screaming doen't change that fact. He's learning to be a BIG BOY,and that there are other ways to work for something that he wants. Even though he does'nt always work out.

El Barto
07-05-2006, 12:33 PM
I think that the NRA does pick their battles and they leave some for us. The NRA is the best know group out there and in being so, is the poster boy for a lot of the antiís. If the NRA came out and started fighting for OLL before the grassroots movement (us), then you can be assured that it would have been blocked by those that are against anything the NRA is for. They automatically think that if the NRA likes it, they must hate it. This is the same type of person that just has to have the next Oprah book. Who cares what that book actually is, they were told they have to read it.

For those that want the OLL banned, I think they have read too much Dante. Those stuck in Purgatory (or Limbo) try to get sent to Hell so that they can be eventually sent to heaven upon final judgement.

*Please remember that the above is just my opinion and any relation to actual fact or popular view is merely coincidental.

xenophobe
07-05-2006, 1:22 PM
I think you owe it to the audience to back up these wild and dangerous accusations about these bills.

I feel like a gradeschool teacher... Okay, check this out... Familiarize yourself with AB2111 and what it does. I'll reiterate in breif;

FACT:
AB2111 allows the DOJ to deny a hangun sale after the point of purchase, even if a purchaser has DROSed it if it falls off the California DOJ Roster of Certified Hanguns before the 10 day waiting period is over. NRA agrees with this and considers this "consumer protection".

ANALYSIS:
By the very arguement that this is a good thing, using the logic that has been used to support this:

1) Dealers should not consign firearms that are not listed on the California Certified Roster, have fallen off the roster, have failed the drop test, or have never been submitted for it, because the dealer would be selling a potentially unsafe handgun. NRA should be against this according to the logic used to support AB2111.

2) Dealers should not PPT handguns that are not on the Roster, have fallen off the roster, have never been on the roster, or have failed to become certified because they would be transferring a potentially unsafe firearm. Again, using the consistency of THEIR arguments, the NRA should not support this either.

FACT:
NRA is opposed to AB944, a law that would require dealers to post a specific warning in a dealer's buisiness in public view and on the sales receipt. Consumer protection?

ANALYSIS:
SIMPLE ENGLISH if you can't comprehend the above:
NRA says DOJ power=good. NRA says poster in gun store=bad.


you are the one making absolute statements. back it up. lead follow or get out of the way.

Perhaps the above is too adult a puzzle for you? Or can you not see the inconsistency of their positions, or do you just not care that they are wavering on political lines and changing their story to suit their support?

I have repetitively backed up my statements to lazy armchair commando comments such as yours. You are not leading or following, you are just repeating a broadcast... Got Tivo? Please type a few coherent reasons why my analysis of the above facts is incorrect, or how I am misunderstanding the inconsistency of their position.

Dont Tread on Me
07-05-2006, 1:36 PM
FACT:
NRA is opposed to AB944, a law that would require dealers to post a specific warning in a dealer's buisiness in public view and on the sales receipt. Consumer protection?
.

This was an _ANTI_ gun bill designed to increase to cost to gun dealers because they would have to print new paper work and dedicate more of their wall space to warning posters. They are tyring to make it so hard to sell a gun in CA that nobody will do it.

Please, please attend your local members' council meeting. We can spend all our energy fighting each other or we can put this energy to good use. The NRA is not perfect, but you are free to change that. By attending you can influance.

xenophobe
07-05-2006, 1:45 PM
This was an _ANTI_ gun bill designed to increase to cost to gun dealers because they would have to print new paper work and dedicate more of their wall space to warning posters. They are tyring to make it so hard to sell a gun in CA that nobody will do it.

And AB2111 was a PRO-gun bill until it was amended. After the amendment, it added an additional step to the 40+ steps involved in buying a new handgun in California. AB2111 was a good thing UNTIL it was amended, and NRA should have pulled it's support when it turned into a mildly ANTI-gun bill.

Please read Cali-gula's assessment of what AB2111 actually does. Sadly, his insightful and truthful comments were mostly ignored:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=316194&postcount=2

And you should be appalled at how much it takes to sell a new handgun in California, and adding more control to DOJ isn't even remotely a good thing:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=306575&postcount=1


Please, please attend your local members' council meeting. We can spend all our energy fighting each other or we can put this energy to good use. The NRA is not perfect, but you are free to change that. By attending you can influance.

My whole point is, something got screwed up, the NRA and gun owners needs to realize and acknowlege this so this does not happen again. Read my first post again. My first and last paragraphs outline exactly how I feel about the NRA and why I am compelled to write what I do.

Anthonysmanifesto
07-05-2006, 2:01 PM
XENOPHOBE:
please feel free to point out what parts of the bill are bad. just the bill. as written. the bill. ab 2111. using the text of the bill. please

these threads lose something with these wild assertions.

and yes I read Caligula "arguments", and yet there isn't any tangible connection to the BILL. there are several interesting points and im struggling to find its connection to the BILL.

as I have pointed out time and time again.

Talkin2u2
07-05-2006, 2:22 PM
using the text of the bill. please..........

these threads lose something with these wild assertions...........

........... and yet there isnt any tanglible connection to the BILL. there are several intersting points and im struggling to find its connection to the BILL.

as I have pointed out time and time again.



I have come to the conclusion that trying to use logic and reason and FACTS with some people is a complete waste of time. They seem to be blinded by their own agendas, no matter what the truth of the matter is. :mad:

Okay allready! Everyone on this forum knows who hates the NRA, and who recognizes the NRA's value. But please continue to attack NRA for their good deeds. It shows the attackers' motivations and drives those who are undecided towards the fact that the NRA is doing good things.

Personally, the name-calling (NRA Worshipper) was my favorite. ;)

Ricki Stevens

tankerman
07-05-2006, 2:24 PM
I feel like a gradeschool teacher... Okay, check this out... Familiarize yourself with AB2111 and what it does. I'll reiterate in breif;

FACT:
AB2111 allows the DOJ to deny a hangun sale after the point of purchase, even if a purchaser has DROSed it if it falls off the California DOJ Roster of Certified Hanguns before the 10 day waiting period is over. NRA agrees with this and considers this "consumer protection".

ANALYSIS:
By the very arguement that this is a good thing, using the logic that has been used to support this:

1) Dealers should not consign firearms that are not listed on the California Certified Roster, have fallen off the roster, have failed the drop test, or have never been submitted for it, because the dealer would be selling a potentially unsafe handgun. NRA should be against this according to the logic used to support AB2111.

2) Dealers should not PPT handguns that are not on the Roster, have fallen off the roster, have never been on the roster, or have failed to become certified because they would be transferring a potentially unsafe firearm. Again, using the consistency of THEIR arguments, the NRA should not support this either.

FACT:
NRA is opposed to AB944, a law that would require dealers to post a specific warning in a dealer's buisiness in public view and on the sales receipt. Consumer protection?

ANALYSIS:
SIMPLE ENGLISH if you can't comprehend the above:
NRA says DOJ power=good. NRA says poster in gun store=bad.




Perhaps the above is too adult a puzzle for you? Or can you not see the inconsistency of their positions, or do you just not care that they are wavering on political lines and changing their story to suit their support?

I have repetitively backed up my statements to lazy armchair commando comments such as yours. You are not leading or following, you are just repeating a broadcast... Got Tivo? Please type a few coherent reasons why my analysis of the above facts is incorrect, or how I am misunderstanding the inconsistency of their position.

You are adding your own psuedo logic to AB2111, paranioa is driving, conspiracies everywhere,lets call FOX MOULDER,he'll figure it out. Sometimes a consumer protection bill is just that a consumer protection bill. It is aimed at ensuring that a list of safely operating guns is maintained, and that list is to be funded by the firearm makers. Also, keeps the buyer financially safe in the case that the firearm has already been purchased, but falls off. Unfortunately some very safe firearms will be on that list, either the manufacter does not want to pay to have it tested, probably because it never sold enough in this state to begin with such as the case with THOMPSON or to many different variations as in S&W.
By working with the state to form laws that gain support for the state assembly, it makes it more difficult for the ANTI's to back door us. Specially if the bill is consumer safety which is what the ANTI's have tried to turn tis issue into.
AB944 starts by reiterating that it is already law that certain info must be be displayed at a gunshop concerning firearm dangers,the bill would force gunshop owners to post info on hazards of you having firearms in your home and force the gunmakers to supply the same info with the instruction manual in an creating an implied contract once you purchase the firearm. The NRA opposes this bill as it should. It leaves consumers open to lawsuits.
Perhaps you should finish reading these bills before you start forming an opinion on them, maybe even let them soak in a while before commenting.
Whether or not you like it. the DOJ is regulatory body responsible for these issues in this state and the NRA can not just make them disappear because you're angry. The NRA must work with the DOJ to ensure that there is clear understanding of existing laws and that those laws are constitutional. These are not overnite projects, progress is only as fast as the bureaucracy allows, unless the courts step in as in the case involving the S.F. ban.

Look out your window there might be a black helicopter circling your house.

Dont Tread on Me
07-05-2006, 3:40 PM
My whole point is, something got screwed up, the NRA and gun owners needs to realize and acknowlege this so this does not happen again. Read my first post again. My first and last paragraphs outline exactly how I feel about the NRA and why I am compelled to write what I do.

Did just that and I see where you are comming from. I'm admit to being lost on the recent warning signs at dealers being supported by the NRA, I just don't know the history only what I learned recently - that it was an anti-gun move to increase dealer costs.

I think we've talked the OLL issue to death. Asking the NRA to encouraging listing is like asking the Pope to lend you money for a hooker! It is against his/their religion.