PDA

View Full Version : Can't We Make Calguns Friendly to DOJ?


dhl
10-22-2006, 3:52 PM
Hi,

What say we try to work with DOJ? Instead of thinking everyone at DOJ is out to get us, let's try to think of them as people that might be able to help us if we can agree on a way.

I'm thinking we can ask DOJ to offer one of their folks as a moderator and we open a DOJ forum were we can openly ask questions. I'm thinking of this as being an educational opportunity and not a forum for bashing.

My opinion of DOJ is that they're simply people doing a job they're told to do by their boss'. Some gun enthusiasts think that because some law enforcement show an anti-gun bias that all law enforcement are anti-gun, and I know they aren't. Many law enforcement are conservative pro-gun people just like us and they have to live by the same laws.

So, let's try to make friends, at least open up a dialogue.

luvtolean
10-22-2006, 5:13 PM
I think that would be great. But good luck.

As much as a DOJ employee might want to, every post they make is in a sense a legal document. The last thing in the world they need is a bunch of "well DOJ said online".

I work with several attorneys on a semi-regular basis, and they avoid written public statements about opinions and such as much as possible if it has anything to do with their work.

socalguns
10-22-2006, 5:25 PM
People work for the DOJ, but the DOJ is not people.
Soylent DOJ on the other hand is PEOPLE!
They told us it was cowflop, but it s PEOPLE!!
You've gotta tell them!
You've gotta tell them!:eek:

Cardinal Sin
10-22-2006, 7:00 PM
I guess it doesn't hurt to dream . . . . ha ha ha

rssslvr
10-22-2006, 7:49 PM
I think that is a great idea.The worst they could say is no.

1911_sfca
10-22-2006, 7:54 PM
Maybe you can make a blog for Kim Jong Il too, so we can work through the North Korean's aggression and they won't do anymore nuclear tests... Good luck, we're behind you!

Kestryll
10-22-2006, 8:03 PM
Maybe you can make a blog for Kim Jong Il too, so we can work through the North Korean's aggression and they won't do anymore nuclear tests... Good luck, we're behind you!

Now that's a bit of an over-dramatization don't you think?

We may have cross views from some in the AG's office but I don't think that elevates them to the level of Kim Jong Il.
And it seriously makes light of the danger that man presents.

Can'thavenuthingood
10-22-2006, 8:19 PM
they're simply people doing a job they're told to do by their boss'

Its easier to do the job by the book, Zero Tolerance, than it is to use good judgement. On the other hand, good judgement is a relative term, whose definition is decided by whoever is exercising the good judgement.

History is full of examples of folks just doing their jobs, yet those actions were or are morally wrong. Don't want to deal with morals? Okay, then they were just disrespectful bullies.

You might get into a meaningful conversation with an individual member of DOJ but when they bunch up, you're toast.

Its a government entity and each individual is "....just doing their job."

I've heard that phrase countless times through the years when dealing with various government entities. A decision cannot be made without sending it up the flagpole. Staffing it means "I don't want this decision to mar an otherwise uneventful career of mind numbing nothingness."

For those unable to decipher:
I'm against.

Vick

1911_sfca
10-23-2006, 12:22 AM
I wasn't comparing them to Kim Jong Il, and I don't view the DOJ in that light.

I was using an analogy to point out that having a productive conversation with the DOJ on a site like Calguns is about as likely as quelling international tensions by creating a blog.. it's naive to believe that would happen.

xrMike
10-23-2006, 7:20 AM
I work with several attorneys on a semi-regular basis, and they avoid written public statements about opinions and such as much as possible if it has anything to do with their work.I think that pretty much sums up why DOJ would never allow one of their own to be their spokesperson here (or anywhere else). Too much political and legal liability, with little-to-no benefit or gain.

hoffmang
10-23-2006, 10:44 AM
I think this is a temporal issue. Should certain things change at DOJ, I could see the firearms division potentially being willing to do something like "Ask the DOJ."

It may not be a forum, but it might be one of us acting as go between where they know that the responses will be posted. I think there are some staff changes that have to occur there first (read OLL issues being fully settled.)

-Gene

6172crew
10-23-2006, 2:21 PM
I think that pretty much sums up why DOJ would never allow one of their own to be their spokesperson here (or anywhere else). Too much political and legal liability, with little-to-no benefit or gain.

Ya, doing the job that they are there to do could be asking to much.

xrMike
10-24-2006, 1:25 PM
Exactly. They have pensions and early retirements to protect. No sense in rocking the boat that laid the golden egg, or kicking the gift goose in the mouth.

VeryCoolCat
10-24-2006, 3:27 PM
The day we start working with the DOJ, is the day they start "regulating and managing" instead of "restricting and banning"

grammaton76
10-24-2006, 5:07 PM
I really don't think they'd be open to having a DOJ forum on Calguns, Gunscal, or ANY other privately held board. The problem is that we have moderators, administrators, etc and the ability to edit things.

For various reasons, they would need to have complete control over whatever forum they participated in.

On the other hand, it might be possible to convince them to start providing a publically viewable "advice column" style semi-forum on THEIR site. However, I really doubt that it would be open to public comment and overall back-and-forth.

dhl
10-24-2006, 10:04 PM
I say to the Calguns owner, 'let's ask DOJ and see what they have to say.' To all you naysayers, think positive. I hear too many negative comments and thoughts instead of positive new ideas to try to make things better.

tankerman
10-25-2006, 7:31 AM
I say to the Calguns owner, 'let's ask DOJ and see what they have to say.' To all you naysayers, think positive. I hear too many negative comments and thoughts instead of positive new ideas to try to make things better.

While you're at it why not contact BATF and invite them over for tea and crumpettes.

dwtt
10-25-2006, 9:35 PM
I say to the Calguns owner, 'let's ask DOJ and see what they have to say.' To all you naysayers, think positive. I hear too many negative comments and thoughts instead of positive new ideas to try to make things better.
Who are you going to ask? The DOJ isn't just one person. Give us a name to write to or call. Otherwise, this is pointless.

halifax
10-25-2006, 10:18 PM
I think this is a temporal issue. Should certain things change at DOJ, I could see the firearms division potentially being willing to do something like "Ask the DOJ."

It may not be a forum, but it might be one of us acting as go between where they know that the responses will be posted. I think there are some staff changes that have to occur there first (read OLL issues being fully settled.)

-Gene

For the regular working stiff at DOJ, CalGuns.net has probably made their lives difficult with the OLL thing. Although OLLs don't necessarily violate the letter of the law, someone high-up must certainly believe it violates the spirit of the law. Thus more work, more tension I'm guessing.

The people I've talked to over there about non-OLL problems have been very helpful. Some even seemed friendly. :D

If a less acerbic attitude from the top ever comes about, maybe things will mellow enough for some DOJ employees to participate in some kind of forum. I look foward to that day.

paradox
10-26-2006, 6:33 AM
I think we should just keep doing it like we've always done: if you have a question for the DOJ, write it down on a piece of paper, send it certified mail, then when they send a response, scan it and post it on CalGuns for all us to see and converse about.

aileron
10-29-2006, 9:42 AM
Im new here, and just thought I would step in with a thought I have been having for a very long time. It might be a little lengthy.

First though, my impressions of government entities BATF, DOJ, FBI.. they do not react to an individual. Only to political pressure from the masses.

CALGUNS is the beginning of what I hope for... more political activism by the gun owners of California, and America.

You see activism by those who our prejudice against firearms (hatred) is why we have been slowly watching our rights being infringed upon. History has shown why the 2nd amendment was created and that governments will do everything creative that they can to disarm the masses. Especially with prejudice in their hearts.

So unless (here is the thought I have been having lately) we as gun owners in this nation, and specifially in this state, do not put political pressure on our government to acknowledge the 2nd amendement we will watch our rights disappear as they have once again in England. (Its not the first time they have lost their rights.)

I look at California, New Jersey, New York, and few other states that I cannot remember off the top of my head, and realize we in those states are the front lines of the politcal battle that is ensuing.

We must unite, we must work together, we must educate, we must coordinate our efforts across states, we must work to get every gun owner to join the local political associations that are working to take back our rights.

In fact the most depressing thing I saw in myself was not rejoining the NRA, because I was upset that they kept losing when Clinton was in office. (The assault weapons ban really ticked me off.) And now I realize, they were historically just a association for people of like minds to get together and enjoy time together. They were thrown into this just like all of us have been.

Every owner of a firearm should be a member of the NRA. That is politcal power. I guess only 4,000,000 million our members today (I just renewed recently for 3 years.) And the number of firearms owners is closer to 50 million or something like that. I would hope we can all work to make sure everyone that owns a gun, is a member, for his/her own future rights to enjoy our rights as free people.

And not just the NRA, but the local associations. That is might, that is unity, that will throw them off their high horse. The political pressure will be un-yielding at that high a level.

I have not seen this unity, but I know if we do it. We will come out winners. And then DOJ goes away, and bothers us about something else.

So if you want to see a change, then make sure yourself, and everyone you know is supporting the local associations that are fighting for your rights. Keep everyone informed, make sure every gun owner you know is a member of local associations and nationaly at the NRA. Read your history about the 2nd amendment, education on this issue is power. Also Ive even contemplated joining out of state associations to help their cause, just to show unity and solidarity in this issue.

Unite!

aileron
p.s. Im not a representative of the NRA or anything like that, im just getting back into shooting because where I work, there are a lot of shooters, and it has been a real joy to be able to talk with like minded individuals. I guess defense contractors get a lot of gun owners working for them. ;) Everywhere else I worked, I just kept my mouth shut, which is wrong. I should of been polite and discussed the history and why the 2nd amendment is there.

dhl
10-29-2006, 10:55 AM
Hmmm, I suppose 'we' could do a websearch on the DOJ website to find out who's in charge at the DOJ. Do you think that would work?


Who are you going to ask? The DOJ isn't just one person. Give us a name to write to or call. Otherwise, this is pointless.