View Full Version : CRPA Comment on their actions

09-01-2006, 10:29 AM
Just got a response from CRPA addressing a posting here too their recent actions or better lack of actions.. Reading thru this makes me want to barf.. what a load of double talk.

For example they state:

"Also, they have joined with PETA and are SUPPORTING SB 1578-an ANTI-HUNTING DOG TETHERING bill."

But in the next paragraph they state:

...Senator Lowenthal asked CRPA to support the bill. CRPA did send a letter to that affect...

If that isn't BS, then what is...

Here is the entire email:



Recently a representative of the NRA Member's Councils in California published and distributed a false and misleading email about the California Rifle & Pistol Association's (CRPA) and Gun Owner's of California's (GOC) efforts on behalf of firearms owners in California. The distribution misrepresents CRPA's positions on several pieces of legislation pending in Sacramento, and misstates CRPA's involvement in opposing regulations proposed by the California Department of Justice that would affect "assault weapons.

The inaccurate anti-CRPA and GOC posting has lead to several inquiries to CRPA concerning the truth of the statements. This statement is designed to respond to those inquiries. Following is a point by point clarification. Preliminarily however, CRPA wishes to make clear that it has been sharing its legislative strategies and working cooperatively with NRA representatives in Fairfax on a regular basis for months. And CRPA and NRA have been involved as cooperative partners in a variety of jointly funded ventures on behalf of California gun owners for many years.

"CRPA and GOC have removed their opposition to AB 2714, the MAIL ORDER AMMO BAN."

CRPA and GOC never removed their opposition to AB 2714.

This can be verified by checking with Assembly Member Torrico, the author of AB 2714. A CRPA opposition letter was submitted to Assemblyman Torrico early on, dating back to APRIL 12, 2006, and was never withdrawn. And an additional reconfirming CRPA letter of opposition was also submitted to Assemblyman Torrico on August 21, 2006.

AB 2714 would not cause adults ".to suffer restrictions on ammo purchasing." The stated purpose of AB 2714 was to enforce both state and federal law that prohibits persons under the age of 21 years from taking delivery of handgun ammunition purchased on the internet or by mail order. It sought to stop delivery to such purchasers by common and contract carriers (such as UPS, FedEx, or the U.S. Postal Service). AB 2714 would have required recipients of shipped ammunition to show identification to the delivery truck driver or mailman, similar to when taking delivery of alcoholic beverages. CRPA had many concerns about how this bill would be implemented and what kind of burden it might create for gun owners. As any professional lobbying organization would do, CRPA and GOC, along with the legislative advocate for the California Association of Firearms Retailers (CAFR), did attempt to work with Assemblyman Torrico to resolve points of opposition in the bill through amendments. These discussions were covered extensively in The Firing Line. Had these discussions been fruitful and all objectionable sections of the bill removed, CRPA contemplated and anticipated being able to possibly remove its opposition. Some, but not all, of the amendments requested by CRPA, CAFR, and/or GOC were accepted by Assemblyman Torrico. Ultimately, however, CRPA, GOC and CAFR were unable to remove their opposition to the bill and continued to oppose it for multiple and obvious reasons.

"Also, they have joined with PETA and are SUPPORTING SB 1578-an ANTI-HUNTING DOG TETHERING bill."

Neither CRPA nor GOC had any contact nor any other form of communication with PETA. CRPA has not worked, does not work, and likely never will work with PETA in any capacity whatever.

SB 1578 is not an "anti-hunting dog tethering" bill. It was amended in May at the request of CRPA and other sportsmens' organizations to exempt licensed activities and license related activities including hunting, dog training, game bird clubs, etc. In exchange for the amendments that CRPA asked for and actually achieved which exempted hunters and activities relating to hunting, Senator Lowenthal asked CRPA to support the bill. CRPA did send a letter to that affect, but CRPA never engaged in any supporting lobbying activities

CRPA went "neutral" on the bill as soon as NRA's Sacramento advocate belatedly went on record with NRA's opposition - which wasn't until August 21. Now . . . NRA has shifted its position to "neutral" which is in full agreement with CRPA's position.

"..neither CRPA or GOC were present at Wednesday`s DOJ hearing where DOJ is trying to expand the AW law."

Members of both CRPA and GOC were present at the DOJ hearing, at CRPA's request as published in The Firing Line.

On the morning of the DOJ hearing CRPA's Sacramento advocate was in the capital building five blocks away, along with the NRA's Sacramento legislative advocate. The legislative year was at a point where bills must receive a lobbyist's constant attention. So the CRPA, GOC, CAFR, ad NRA lobbyists were all in the Capital, working in unison and fighting anti-gun bills that were pending in the critical last days of the Legislative session.

From past experience CRPA knows that DOJ's formal hearings are not particularly relevant to its regulatory decision making. It is far more important to submit written comments than it is to make a brief statement at a hearing. CRPA did submit written opposition to the DOJ's AW regulatory proposal.

"NRA staff and attorneys were there with about 25 volunteers."

There were not 25 NRA volunteers at the DOJ hearing. Of the approximately total of 25 people in attendance, there were only about five NRA volunteers. The rest of the audience were likely members of NRA, CRPA, GOC, and/or CAFR. All of these groups notified their members of the hearing, and encouraged them to attend.

"So, if you want your pro-gun dollars going to restrict ammo sales, helping PETA screw hunters and being "AWOL" regarding CA`s AW ban, GOC and CRPA are for you."

Such a statement is inappropriate, defamatory, arrogant, and intolerable! Donations to CRPA are used to fight anti-Second Amendment efforts in the Capital and throughout California.

In the future, CRPA urges those with questions about CRPA's legislative activities to direct their inquiries to the CRPA so that the Association can explain its actions and intentions. Gun rights activists should never adopt the misrepresentations of others without questioning the accuracy of the information, or the motivations of the sources.

Makes me want to change my signature........:mad:

{edit: I was so "hot under the collar" when I received this that I didn't check for another posting... Please defer to CATHOG posting on this subject for followup comments. Thanks Hunter}