PDA

View Full Version : ANOTHER NRA VICTORY: AB 2111 Signed by the governor


mikehaas
07-12-2006, 2:01 PM
7/12/2006 - Today, NRA-Sponsored AB2111 (Haynes), the Handgun Transfer Protection Act, was signed by the Governor. Thanks for all your support!

AB2111 insures that a handgun transfer can take place even if a handgun falls off the California DOJ safe handgun list during the waiting period.

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2111

For the latest on CA Firearms-related bills:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml

bwiese
07-12-2006, 2:25 PM
Yawn. A moderately useful bill turned into a bill that is, at best, neutral.

Let's see how they do on 2728 and how much support they give to its fight.

grammaton76
07-12-2006, 2:27 PM
Well, with that resolved, at least now there'll be more attention to spread around...

6172crew
07-12-2006, 2:39 PM
At least the NRA is still around. Seems like we never heard from them last year.

Thanks for the update Mike.

Black_Talon
07-12-2006, 2:43 PM
At least the NRA is still around. Seems like we never heard from them last year.

Boy, ain't that the truth!

Now if the CRPA would pull their heads out and join up with the NRA maybe we could make even more inroads.

mikehaas
07-12-2006, 2:49 PM
Let's see how they do on 2728 and how much support they give to its fight.
Not likely. You seeing it, I mean. Unless they want you to.

Always amazes me, the number of "legal beagles" here that are convinced, if they don't see "something", that "something" can't exist. Not a becoming trait, to be a "know it all" about things one can't possibly know (unless one is on the inside).

We aren't the audience, folks - out of necessity, few will know what NRA is or isn't doing unless they want us to know. And there are times they are fighting like hell behind the scenes, and no one finds out because the issue must stay BEHIND THE SCENES.

The bulls in the China shop around here, by definition, do not understand sublety (like why AB 2111 is such a good thing) but no surprise there. No one expects them to be loyal to that which doesn't gratify them immediately and totally. No one expects ego to recognize that NRA really are the experts that we empower them to be through our members' dues, not us.

Mike

mikehaas
07-12-2006, 2:54 PM
At least the NRA is still around. Seems like we never heard from them last year...

We've been here the whole time...
http://calnra.com/gfx/2003-2005.gif
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2005
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2004
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2003
(That's all my legs page has archived.)

Where were you guys? :-)

Mike

caliar15
07-12-2006, 3:58 PM
+1 Too many people critisize without actually suporting. Lets face it without the NRA our gun rights would hardly exist if at all.

bwiese
07-12-2006, 4:42 PM
fight the bill that prohibits gun bans by fiat?

get ready to be disappointed. Not my NRA!

Um, it transfers the formal AG procedures to casual procedures by a local DA.

It lowers the threshold significantly.

(There are significant issues with 2728 that might be helpful and/or render 2728 useless but I won't go into details here.)

bg
07-12-2006, 5:03 PM
I'll take whatever we can get when it comes to a bill
signed into law that doesn't hamstring the more..
After all these long distance calls and stamps get
expensive on a fixed income.

xenophobe
07-12-2006, 6:06 PM
yay! The NRA has successfully added a pre-delivery status check to the already combersome procedure for new handgun purchases, making it more difficult for dealers, handing more control to the DOJ and complicating delivery issues to the purchaser! :rolleyes:

xenophobe
07-12-2006, 6:15 PM
You're not being completely forthcoming. If you buy and DROS a hangun that is on the roster, and it falls off for any reason, you may still take delivery of it. At least till Jan 1, 2007.

Everything I mention is fact.

xenophobe
07-12-2006, 6:25 PM
I'm reading the code too. Please show me one line where it says "consumer protection".

AB2111 amends section 12131 of the Penal Code to be more restrictive.

You feel safer. So SB-15 should be implemented nationwide. That will make you feel even more safe.

SemiAutoSam
07-12-2006, 6:26 PM
a one time fee would have been better.


A one time fee would not give the state as much easy unearned cash as it gets with the way its setup now

This fee is pure extortion but the companies must make plenty of money when they sell their wares here or they would not pay it.

After all one day past a handguns expiration does not really make that handgun unsafe its the same handgun that was sold before the expiration date came and went.

xenophobe
07-12-2006, 6:44 PM
Thanks for sidestepping the question.

Where does it say, in any general terms, that there is protection for the dealer (as Wes kept arguing) or protection for the consumer?

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?file=ab_2111_bill_20060627_enrolled.html

All it does is add an extra regulatory power to the DOJ where it had none previously.

Look closely at the modified code. You did say you read it... There is nothing stricken out, there is only MORE restrictive code. There is no "consumer protection" written nor implied.

tenpercentfirearms
07-12-2006, 7:36 PM
Xeno I know you won't change you mind on this and that is fine. I know you are still on the 2nd Amendment's side despite our disagreement. This is for everyone else.

12125. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year.I can see it now, under the old system the DOJ "said" it was fine for me to deliver a handgun that had fallen off the list (they also said they were going to list in two weeks, they also said that they were going to make a catagory 4, they say that our fixed magazine rifles aren't really fixed, they said they were going to bust the first guy they found using a fixed mag kit, they say you can't use a handgun DROS as the background check for long guns, need I go on about what they say?). I deliver said gun and then some moron shoots themselves or others with it. I go to court and they ask me, "Did you or did you not give that handgun to the customer?" Sure my lawyer can argue time of sale and all that fun stuff. Maybe I make it past the criminal charges and it only goes to civil court. Of course the national lawful protection of commerce does not apply because we are talking about a "defective" handgun that was deemed unsafe. Bye, bye gun shop.

Or we can go to the new system where the rules are clear. Handguns that fall off for administrative reasons can now be clearly delivered. Handguns deemed unsafe cannot. Now we get to see how the DOJ has to handle this. I suspect they will have to find a better notifcation system for when a handgun is taken off the list for a failed retest where they actually notify all FFLs. I am sure it wouldn't be too hard to look at DROS and see exactly how many of those new handguns are currently within their ten days in a dealer transaction and notify those dealers they cannot deliver those handguns. After all PPTs are still exempt. Odds are, that won't happen for several years. This doesn't have to be the doomsday pain in the arse that people are trying to make it out to be.

And lets stop bringing this up like it some how strengthens and supports SB15. That is weak reasoning. SB15 is reality, this bill finds a way to protect dealers that clearly have to comply with SB15. I can support AB2111 and still not like SB15. Now we try next year to get a one time permanent fee. One step at a time.

6172crew
07-12-2006, 7:48 PM
Thanks Wes, I have a hard time taking sides with good guys on this board but I hope Mike can look at this as the first bill not to bend us over and Im glad to see that we have friends working to make things better for us buying, collecting, shooting, selling, etc a little better.

This year 2111, next year CCW reform...:D

tenpercentfirearms
07-12-2006, 9:02 PM
Treelogger, what do you think about the story that this bill had originally started out as a means to make the SB15 fee a one time fee and that the CRPA and their lobbyists are what helped gut it into what it is today? Is there any credibility to that story?

Well I like to be a well informed guy, so I will do some research too. Here is what I found. http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/bills/AB_2111/

First, the bill originally started off as a tax exemption for firearms safety devices. http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?file=ab_2111_bill_20060217_introduced.ht ml

Second, someone changed it to the one time fee for getting handguns on the list. Man would that have been nice. A nearly permanent Safe Handguns list! http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?file=ab_2111_bill_20060330_amended_asm.h tml

Third, that didn't last for very long, now we get a version of the bill similar to what we saw signed into law. http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?file=ab_2111_bill_20060417_amended_asm.h tml

Finally, a day later it is amended for the last time. http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?file=ab_2111_bill_20060418_amended_asm.h tml

So the question is how did a law that started out as a tax emption for firearms safety devices turn into a great bill that would have made the SB15 guns permanent with a one time fee into the bill it was signed into law as? Mike Haas and others are reporting that the NRA is claiming the CRPA and industry interests didn't like that idea. I am not sure why.

So why doesn't someone call Ray Hayne's office tomorrow and ask what happened to his bill? Then we can also have someone call the CRPA and ask them for a statement. It shouldn't take too long to find out if the NRA supporters are telling the truth or not. Someone definitely changed the bill, letís find out whom.

And for the record, in my opinion this bill protects me as a gun dealer and I hardly see it as a defeat. Really it is hard to call it the doomsday bill some people are making it out to be until we see how the DOJ handles it. If they make a quick system of notification when a gun fails retest, it will hardly be the damnation of gun dealers everywhere that it is being made out to be.

AntiBubba 2.1
07-12-2006, 9:21 PM
I guess I shouldn't complain about crumbs, but isn't it sad that this, this AB 2111, is a victory worthy of NRA mention?

It's one baby step forward, one Hollywood-style shotgun blast backward.

xenophobe
07-12-2006, 9:26 PM
I can see it now, under the old system the DOJ "said" it was fine for me to deliver a handgun that had fallen off the list


Show me a case where one dealer was ever prosecuted, or even had charges drawn up because of a 'safe gun' being retested, dropped off the list, handgun delivered, and malfunction resulting injury and death.

That is what you are saying this bill would protect you from. BS. Manufacturer is liable for unsafe firearms. You cannot be held liable, with or without this bill. This is 'protection' from a situation that has never occurred.


Of course the national lawful protection of commerce does not apply because we are talking about a "defective" handgun that was deemed unsafe. Bye, bye gun shop.

As a retailer, you are not responsible for the quality and workmanship of a particular product, or it's liability from misuse or malfunction. As a dealer, you should know this.


Or we can go to the new system where the rules are clear. Handguns that fall off for administrative reasons can now be clearly delivered. Handguns deemed unsafe cannot. Now we get to see how the DOJ has to handle this. I suspect they will have to find a better notifcation system for when a handgun is taken off the list for a failed retest where they actually notify all FFLs. I am sure it wouldn't be too hard to look at DROS and see exactly how many of those new handguns are currently within their ten days in a dealer transaction and notify those dealers they cannot deliver those handguns. After all PPTs are still exempt. Odds are, that won't happen for several years. This doesn't have to be the doomsday pain in the arse that people are trying to make it out to be.


I'm not saying it's a doomsday pain in the arse. I'm also not pretending this bill has pro-gun implications.



And lets stop bringing this up like it some how strengthens and supports SB15. That is weak reasoning. SB15 is reality, this bill finds a way to protect dealers that clearly have to comply with SB15. I can support AB2111 and still not like SB15. Now we try next year to get a one time permanent fee. One step at a time.

Your arguement that this is some 'consumer protection' is weak. First, you use this argument to support it. But only for California. When it comes to applying your logic to other issues, you change your logic. Yet, when it comes to having to display a poster, that would also provide for consumer and dealer protection, and is much less invasive than AB2111, you're against it. Where is the integrety in that? I just don't see it. At least admit you're only supporting a bill because the NRA is for or against it. Not because you have some moralistic belief one way or another, because you're wavering where it suits you. Perhaps I'm just too conservative on the issue of guns here.


Fact: Every anti-gun liberal voted YES on this bill.
Fact: Consumer protection is not mentioned or even implied by this bill.
Fact: It adds an additional step to the delivery of a new handgun.
Fact: It gives the DOJ 1 very unlikely and small window of opportunity to deny a handgun purchase and keep dros fees.

Anyways, I'm trying to keep out of these threads, but I'm seeing a blatant disrespect to the truth here. It's not my made up truths, but truths that are self-evident. I don't care who supports or writes any bill as long as it is good for me. It also creates two new questions...

1) Does that denied handgun sale DROS get invalidated by the DOJ? Meaning will the gun still turn up as being owned by the DROSed individual? (knowing how the DROS system works, as well as California recordkeeping, I find this to be probable, as I've PPT guns and still had them listed as mine...)

2) Will the purchaser have to wait 30 days from that date to try to DROS another firearm? (knowing the DROS system, they will probably get rejected)

tenpercentfirearms
07-12-2006, 9:54 PM
I still don't understand why everyone thinks this thing is so bad. Realistically, what is it going to do? Is the DOJ suddenly going to start re-testing every gun and start finding they were unsafe the first time around? Of course not. This thing happens so rarely that it really isn't going to be much of an issue. What could have been an issue is that I might have delivered a handgun that had dropped off the list for any reason, someone might have committed a crime with it or had an accident and I could have been sued. That can't happen now. So what can I do? Keep selling guns. I can even sell guns that DROS while on the list and fall off the list for administrative reasons. Sure the DOJ said I could before, but they say a lot of things. There is no more black and white in this issue. So what is it so bad? Because a few guys say it is going to add more to a handgun transaction? Says who? The DOJ hasn't even stated how they are going to comply with this.

What people don't seem to understand is that the NRA was able to the entire legislature to sign off on this thing. ALL OF THEM! An NRA sponsored bill was approved by all of California's legislators. I guess you could see that as a clear sign that this must have been an anti bill if you want. I see it as a step in the right direction. Getting people to see the NRA is not evil and that they can support NRA sponsored legislation. So we get this small thing this time, we get something better next time. Little steps.

Show me a case where one dealer was ever prosecuted, or even had charges drawn up because of a 'safe gun' being retested, dropped off the list, handgun delivered, and malfunction resulting injury and death.Show me one case where a terrorist has smuggled a nuclear weapon into the state and detonated it. It has never happened so we shouldn't try to protect ourselves from it right?

As a retailer, you are not responsible for the quality and workmanship of a particular product, or it's liability from misuse or malfunction. As a dealer, you should know this.I can be held liable in a civil court for delivering it to a customer. No thanks.

I'm not saying it's a doomsday pain in the arse. I'm also not pretending this bill has pro-gun implications.I appreciate not being able to deliver what the state considers an un-safe handgun. No more gray area to be a test case on. What is so wrong with that?

Your arguement that this is some 'consumer protection' is weak. First, you use this argument to support it. But only for California. When it comes to applying your logic to other issues, you change your logic. Yet, when it comes to having to display a poster, that would also provide for consumer and dealer protection, and is much less invasive than AB2111, you're against it. Where is the integrety in that? I just don't see it. At least admit you're only supporting a bill because the NRA is for or against it. Not because you have some moralistic belief one way or another, because you're wavering where it suits you. Perhaps I'm just too conservative on the issue of guns here.You will have to refresh my memory on this one. What poster bill are we talking about and when did I make a statement one way or another? I have no problems with my integrety. This bill protects me from what was once a gray area. It is really that simple. The gray area is gone. I can support this because it protects me and because the NRA likes it. The two are not mutually exclusive. And as a moralistically sound conservative I am assuming you are also against the further additions of new off list lowers to the Kasler List as you never support gun bans even when it might benefit 30,000 lower owners right? Hey I admit I feel dirty about it, but I would love to see a list updated. I have no problem admiting when I waver. Do you?

Fact: Every anti-gun liberal voted YES on this bill.Fact: every pro gun conservative voted on this bill or abstained.
Fact: Consumer protection is not mentioned or even implied by this bill.Opinion: So?Fact: It adds an additional step to the delivery of a new handgun.Speculation: It might add an additional step. Until the DOJ tells us how they are going to handle this, you are speculating, not stating a fact. I quote, "Anyways, I'm trying to keep out of these threads, but I'm seeing a blatant disrespect to the truth here."Fact: It gives the DOJ 1 very unlikely and small window of opportunity to deny a handgun purchase and keep dros fees.Fact: A window the DOJ previously could have taken advantage of, but they chose not to. When there was no exact specification that the DOJ had to give the opinion that we could deliver, they could have just as easily made their opinion that we couldn't have delivered. Again, just because the DOJ says we could have delivered once doesn't mean they will always keep it that way. True, now we don't have a choice. QUESTION? How many guns so far have been removed from the list for a failed retest? I have heard unconfirmed reports of one in 6 years.

1) Does that denied handgun sale DROS get invalidated by the DOJ? Meaning will the gun still turn up as being owned by the DROSed individual? (knowing how the DROS system works, as well as California recordkeeping, I find this to be probable, as I've PPT guns and still had them listed as mine...)

2) Will the purchaser have to wait 30 days from that date to try to DROS another firearm? (knowing the DROS system, they will probably get rejected)All excellent questions that will be addressed by us all as the DOJ goes about working on making this a working bill. Again, none of this is set in stone. I am optimisitc that we will get good answers on this and we will have the opportunity to express how we want to see it work.

And for the record, I have no problems following the NRA's guidance in these matters and am not offended when it is implied that I follow the NRA's lead. The NRA has a paid lobbyist in Sacramento that works solely on our issues. I am fairly certain this lobbyist has information and access that I can't even fathom. When the NRA wants to get a bill passed and gets passed by EVERYONE, I see that as a good thing. I admit there is two ways to look at it. You can see it as relationship building and compromise and that is the way I see it. Or you can see it as a sell out and the further erosion of rights.

tenpercentfirearms
07-12-2006, 10:38 PM
The thing is, you guys keep stating we are going to have to recheck the list. This simply is an unknown being speculated on. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCEDURE WILL BE YET! Just as easily as you can say we will have to re-check the list because the DOJ will just retest guns at any given time of the day I could just as easily say the DOJ will create a system where they notify specific dealers that have these guns running through DROS with a pop up screen similar to a denied DROS notification and it will be in real time and immediate as soon as someone logs into MCI DROS. In fact we are already supposed to check MCI DROS for a rejection before delivering the gun. It could easily be set up when you log in to check, it would tell you whether the gun failed retest or not. If you don't get a notification, just like the system works now, then it is safe to deliver. The DOJ already can't deny someone and ten days after delivery say, "Oh, we denied him, but didn't make a real effort to notify you, you should have just known." The DOJ should know that they are going to have to step up their efforts in getting their list amendments notification changed. For one, they will have to specify whether it failed retest or is an administrative drop.

Anyway, one theory supports the cause against AB2111 and one thoery supports the passing of AB2111. Both ways have no basis on reality yet! We simply don't know how the DOJ is going to handle this. That is my main point. We have no clue if this is going to be a big hassle for gun dealers. Many people are speculating it is and stating it as fact.

The true part is the DOJ will be able to deny unsafe gun transactions. They could have changed their opinion and done so anyway. However, they have not specified if they will keep the DROS fees or if it will mess up the 30 day per handgun list. Again, it would be speculaton to claim it would.

If this thing goes our way and they don't knock the 30 days, they provide a DROS credit, and they create a MCI DROS based instant notification, I will be the first to say I told you so. If it goes your way, I will eat crow. Only time will tell.

mikehaas
07-13-2006, 8:08 AM
Now, if the Cal NRA would just stop spending all its effort on beating up the CRPA, and instead work to restore some gun rights in this state, we could make some serious inroads...
NRA hasn't been beating up on CRPA (even though I wish they would).

My comments about CRPA have been prompted by either responding to CRPA wasting your time with BS fund-raising "alerts" (telling you to lobby the wrong lawmakers - should I just keep quiet about that? HELL NO!) or responding to the questions of others. I'm not into wasting my time or your time (otherwise I'd recommend you try to improve CRPA - I know more than one *FORMER* CRPA board members that tried that, which is why they are *FORMER* board members. The CRPA board is a sham - pure figurehead. That's not bashing, it's called f-a-c-t.)

I find it ironic that so many "experts" here are willing to jump down NRA's throat for passing pro-gun bills that aren't pro-gun enough for them, yet there is uninformed, knee-jerk defense for a truly pathetic state organization that does NOTHING (except suck RKBA dollars and impede NRA's progress, like opposing a one-time fee for permanent SB15 registration).

Personally, I'm sick and tired of losing. I've had it up to HERE with these sham "Hate NRA, send me money instead" pro-gun groups that do things like endorse rabidly anti-gun GOP politicians (GOC's endorsement of SKS-banning Dan Lungren in 1998, just months after he did it) and CRPA's shenanigans.

My goal is not to gore anyone's ox - it's to try to help turn around this God-forsaken state and have unified, concentrated volunteer activism focus like a laser in support of NRA's goals. I would hope that by educating my fellow gun-owners in that which they CAN'T know, in some of the things that are KEPT from them (unless they too have been working on the inside for a decade), they will make better choices regarding who to support and who not to (every RKBA dollar is important!). Would you have me stop?

Mike

Evil Gun
07-13-2006, 8:30 AM
Yawn. A moderately useful bill turned into a bill that is, at best, neutral.

Let's see how they do on 2728 and how much support they give to its fight.
I agree. This is window dressing at best.

xenophobe
07-13-2006, 10:46 AM
1)I, an unapologetic NRA supporter,

I am not specifically PRO-NRA, or PRO-CRPA or PRO (insert your favorite food group), but I am definitely not ANTI-NRA, CRPA, broccoli....etc... I am PRO-GUN. I am not a moderate, nor am I forgiving. I will also not brush an issue under the blanket because one of these groups might want you too. I also will not tolerate further infringes upon my rights. Yes, I have done my footwork, legwork, strongarming to help 'the cause'. I've shared my time doing mass mailings, signature gathering, petition distribution, letter writing, etc...

We'll have to agree to disagree. I am bound to the self-evident facts, the truth. I am not bound by loyalism to blindly support any particular political group.

trinity9
07-13-2006, 4:14 PM
I guess I shouldn't complain about crumbs, but isn't it sad that this, this AB 2111, is a victory worthy of NRA mention?

It's one baby step forward, one Hollywood-style shotgun blast backward.


Amen. Thanks Bubba-- you saved me some keystrokes.

trinity9

trinity9
07-13-2006, 4:50 PM
NRA hasn't been beating up on CRPA (even though I wish they would).

My
Would you have me stop?

Mike

Actually, I would have you stop putting "experts" in quotation marks. Aside from the implied derision, I've found that experts are usually people who are proficient in only one thing.

For the record, I think your personal efforts are noble. Also for the record, references like this one rub me a bit wrong.



I would hope that by educating my fellow gun-owners in that which they CAN'T know, in some of the things that are KEPT from them (unless they too have been working on the inside for a decade)
Mike

In an earlier board posting, there were "things we couldn't know," or we were directed "not to ask questions, just send a fax or letter." To me those posts imply that my judgement, intellect or discretion is somehow diminished relative to those behind the scenes. Maybe I'm thin skinned, or maybe I'm just not too impressed at where we in the republic have thus far been led by those behind the scenes.

Trinity9

grammaton76
07-14-2006, 11:50 AM
I stand corrected. I had thought that the DoJ has to annually retest a certain percentage of the guns on the list. That is wrong. Instead, PC section 12131(c) states that the DoJ can retest up to 5% of the guns on the list per year. It is not clear that the DoJ has ever retested any handguns; they don't have to.

I'm very surprised they haven't used that as harrassment against companies with guns they don't want to see in the state. Such as the Desert Eagle, for example.

mikehaas
07-14-2006, 6:14 PM
...In an earlier board posting, there were "things we couldn't know," or we were directed "not to ask questions, just send a fax or letter." To me those posts imply that my judgement, intellect or discretion is somehow diminished relative to those behind the scenes...
Diminished judgement? Yes, we are all diminished in our ability to evaluate these issues. None of us have all the facts at our disposal, only what is put on websites. And that's there to give you the ammunition to HELP, not critisize.

Most of us have only recently jumped into the fight. Luckily, we don't HAVE to make such decisions (and actually cannot). In the fight to defend, even advance our rights, our contribution is not in trying to outsmart NRA but in GETTING ON BOARD AND SUPPORTING OUR BIG GORILLA.

NRA operates at a level that none of us do. We can't evaluate the situation as readily or as accurately if for no other reason, we have not the access. Also, as much as we would like to pretend we are lobbyists, we simply (and legally) cannot go where they go, do what they do and would not possess the experience or skill if we could. Can anyone here tell me, without research, which bills were defeated/passed last year? The year before? Is anyone here skilled enough to know, without research, how SB 238 (passed in 2003) might interact with AB 2878 (if it passes), or EVEN WHAT SB 238 DID? (And if you tried, I bet you wouldn't get it right, and that's NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED ABOUT. But NRA knows, thank God.)

Whatever job you perform professionally, I'm sure you have become quite skilled at it over time; I would not propose to argue with you in your field. That would be foolish. Well, the job that our NRA performs, every day, is to work these extremely technical issues as professionals. We are the amatuers, every single one of us. Would any professional in any field suggest that there is little difference between them and amatuers?

As far as one's "intellect or discretion", I propose that is exhibited in how much one believes that voicing an opinion against NRA better advances our cause than presenting a unified voice to the anti-gunners. I would propose that opposing NRA only requires an over-inflated ego.

Mike