PDA

View Full Version : Calgunners What do you want - Poll (CRPA-CGN/CGF)


pennys dad
03-07-2012, 9:35 PM
Why don't you Calgunners tell us what to do next?

With all the current turmoil between the CRPA and Calguns.net, it is important that the community speaks up and tells us what you want.

So lets hold a simply poll.
Should we:

A) campaign for bylaw reform
B) Create a full service gun owner 2.0 organization

safewaysecurity
03-07-2012, 9:41 PM
I still don't understand what the law deal is hear. What is everyone so outraged about that the CRPA is doing?

Ryan_D
03-07-2012, 9:42 PM
I plead ignorance. before I cast a vote, I need to know what the background surrounding this issue is. Why are we asking this? Please pardon my lack of knowledge about this.

jstotts
03-07-2012, 9:44 PM
Yeah, further explanation of the choices would probably help.

Stonewalker
03-07-2012, 9:45 PM
I don't want to give my money to a good ol' boy's shooting club. I want to give my money to grassroots civil rights/ gun rights groups. I thought CRPA was that, or was at least partly that. I'm not going to vote until I know a little more.

Bobby Hated
03-07-2012, 9:49 PM
if calguns wants calgunners to support them, they need to explain the issues better. i've been reading threads about it for over an hour now and i still cant figure out what the root issues are.

in any case i do not want to see the gun lobby in california fractured into opposing camps. division is death to any social movement.

mosinnagantm9130
03-07-2012, 9:51 PM
I plead ignorance. before I cast a vote, I need to know what the background surrounding this issue is. Why are we asking this? Please pardon my lack of knowledge about this.

This^^ What exactly is going on with the CRPA?

rudigan
03-07-2012, 9:55 PM
Why don't you Calgunners tell us what to do next?

Fix the server please. Thanks.

Aaron-Wan-Kenobi
03-07-2012, 9:55 PM
I agree with the above people. Someone please explain each side of the issue.

mosinnagantm9130
03-07-2012, 9:57 PM
Fix the server please. Thanks.

:rofl:

BigFatGuy
03-07-2012, 9:59 PM
Screw the CRPA. Let them rot.

Ksmash01
03-07-2012, 10:07 PM
Is this like a East Coast/West Coast - Biggie vs Tupac kinda thing?


If so, it's best that both sides find some common ground, cling to it, and let everyone benefit from the byproduct of co-operation.


A lack of unity is exactly what we don't need, especially in CA.

Catharsis Anyone?

Stonewalker
03-07-2012, 10:07 PM
The quick summary is :

-Gene proposed changing the CRPA bylaws to (1) bring them in line with State law for members organizations and (2) allow for more adaptive, transparent and grassroots action within the CRPA. The rest of the board The 4 primary officers of the board responded by removing Gene and Brett from the board.

-President of CRPA sent out an email to all members today which seemed (to me) to be a hitpiece on Gene/CGF.

-For me personally, unless CRPA changes its tune quickly, I'll be revoking my membership soon. I still hope that it can become the grassroots RKBA group we all need though. Anybody should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

NotEnufGarage
03-07-2012, 10:09 PM
My understanding is that the bylaws require that to be placed on the ballot to become a board member or officer, you must be a competitive shooter in one of the CRPA recognized disciplines.

Being a 2A civil-rights advocate, LTC advocate/holder, firearms enthusiast, reloader or collector isn't sufficiently active enough in the sport for their liking.

Correct?

NotEnufGarage
03-07-2012, 10:11 PM
The quick summary is :

-Gene proposed changing the CRPA bylaws to (1) bring them in line with State law for members organizations and (2) allow for more adaptive, transparent and grassroots action within the CRPA. The rest of the board responded by removing Gene and Brett from the board.

-President of CRPA sent out an email to all members today which seemed (to me) to be a hitpiece on Gene/CGF.

-For me personally, unless CRPA changes its tune quickly, I'll be revoking my membership soon. I still hope that it can become the grassroots RKBA group we all need though. Anybody should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

Correction - it wasn't the board. It was the 4 primary officers that removed Gene and Brett from the board. Other officers have commented with their disagreement over the action.

Stonewalker
03-07-2012, 10:14 PM
Correction - it wasn't the board. It was the 4 primary officers that removed Gene and Brett from the board. Other officers have commented with their disagreement over the action.

Thanks, edited my post.

TheExpertish
03-07-2012, 10:14 PM
Correction - it wasn't the board. It was the 4 primary officers that removed Gene and Brett from the board. Other officers have commented with their disagreement over the action.

That's what I've noticed. The CRPA's facebook page is in an uproar.

mosinnagantm9130
03-07-2012, 10:15 PM
If I'm understanding this properly, I'd much rather reform the CRPA than start another gun owner organization. The last thing we, as 2A supporters need, is a schism in the movement. I would fear that creating another gun owner's organization to rival the CRPA would do just that.

Bolillo
03-07-2012, 10:19 PM
For now: Campaign to force bylaw reform

Six months out, after the next BoD meeting, if there is not some significant changes to the CRPA Bylaws along the spirit of what Gene proposed, we then build a new gun owner / 2A org.

TheExpertish
03-07-2012, 10:19 PM
If I'm understanding this properly, I'd much rather reform the CRPA than start another gun owner organization. The last thing we, as 2A supporters need, is a schism in the movement. I would fear that creating another gun owner's organization to rival the CRPA would do just that.

I disagree. If the end goal is the same two heads might be better than one. That's assuming the CRPA doesn't implode from a backlash.

Ryan_D
03-07-2012, 10:19 PM
So...still not clear on A.) what you're asking, and B.) Why.

What is the background around this? Someone needs to give me the Cliff notes on the point of contention between the CRPA and the CGF.

zum
03-07-2012, 10:20 PM
divided we fall... lets stay together folks

thedrickel
03-07-2012, 10:26 PM
Does the CRPA realize how much of their membership comes from being a CMP approved club?

captainsdad2
03-07-2012, 10:31 PM
I have watched & seen the work calguns has done towards getting California to come in line with most of the rest of the country. What has the CRPA accomplished?

When someone suggests a group such as CRPA change their bylaws to come into compliance with state laws & they are thrown off the board that group seems to have motives that may be contrary to what California gun owners, not just those in specific clubs, but all gun owners want.

The men that were removed from the board have always appeared to me to be not only reputable, but very knowledgable of gun laws.

I am therefore wary of the CRPA & do not trust them to help protect my 2nd Amendment rights.

Rock6.3
03-07-2012, 10:33 PM
Does the CRPA realize how much of their membership comes from being a CMP approved club?

RWVA can fill that need very easily.

choprzrul
03-07-2012, 10:34 PM
Discuss all you want.

I'm on board with whatever Gene, Brandon, Brett, et al recommend.

Just waiting on marching orders from the right people.

.

freonr22
03-07-2012, 10:36 PM
divided we fall... lets stay together folks

If your wife leaves you, or kicks you out, how do you stay together?

At that point, it's time to move on.

curtisfong
03-07-2012, 10:40 PM
I don't understand why I should care about CRPA, other than the fact that they have funding. What else is worth keeping?

monk
03-07-2012, 10:46 PM
If your wife leaves you, or kicks you out, how do you stay together?

At that point, it's time to move on.

You kick her out of the house using legal means. :D

chief003
03-07-2012, 10:51 PM
I am generally new to the 2A cause. In learning about the various activities of the respective 2A organizations in California I decided to contribute to the Calguns Foundation and support the work they are doing. Given this resent dust up, it makes it even easier to continue to do so.

Chief

Librarian
03-07-2012, 10:54 PM
I still don't understand what the law deal is hear. What is everyone so outraged about that the CRPA is doing?

Let me try one aspect.

This is Corporate Law, and if I acknowledge being a tyro at Penal Code stuff, I'm not even a 2-hour expert with Coporate! I'm sure I have parts of this wrong; if I knew what those parts were, I'd fix them before I hit 'submit reply'.

Refer to Gene's first post in the other CRPA thread; it has links to the changes he suggested, and to the CorpCode.

Just the first, Corporations Code 7250 (http://law.onecle.com/california/corporations/7520.html) (a) As to directors elected by members, there shall be
available to the members reasonable nomination and election
procedures given the nature, size and operations of the corporation.
(b) If a corporation complies with all of the provisions of
Sections 7521, 7522, 7523, and 7524 applicable to a corporation with
the same number of members, the nomination and election procedures of
that corporation, shall be deemed reasonable. However, those
sections do not prescribe the exclusive means of making available to
the members reasonable procedures for nomination and election of
directors. A corporation may make available to the members other
reasonable nomination and election procedures given the nature, size,
and operations of the corporation.
etc. and then CorpCode 7521 A corporation with 500 or more members may provide that,
except for directors who are elected as authorized by Section 7152 or
7153, and except as provided in Section 7522, any person who is
qualified to be elected to the board of directors of the corporation
may be nominated:
(a) By any method authorized by the bylaws, or if no method is set
forth in the bylaws by any method authorized by the board.
(b) By petition delivered to an officer of the corporation, signed
within 11 months preceding the next time directors will be elected,
by members representing the following number of votes:

etc, etc and 7522 A corporation with 5,000 or more members may provide that, in
any election of a director or directors by members of the
corporation except for an election authorized by Section 7152 or
7153

I need to back-form the Aug, 2011 bylaws from Gene's proposed changes.

His proposal is 3.2.1 The Board of Directors shall consist of Association members duly elected to the Board of
Directors in accordance with these Bylaws.

It seems that the unchanged version of that is 3.2.1 The Board of Directors shall consist of Association officers of Standing Committees, and members of the Activity Committees duly elected to the Board of Directors in accordance with these Bylaws.

That is, the procedure (if I have this correct) does not allow direct election from the membership, but from "officers of Standing Committees, and members of the Activity Committees". One gets on those committees by election; any CRPA member may run for those committee seats. It's the Chairs of those committees that are on the BOD. I think. There are other, appointed Directors, by vote of the Board; those are 1-year or shorter gigs, unless re-appointed. 3.6.2 appears to say the positions are permanent, but the occupants are variable.

So, it looks like what was proposed was direct election of Board of Directors from the membership, without the filter of being elected an Activity Committee Chair.

What I remember of the discussion in the other thread runs this way: having some expertise in the Activity makes sense for membership on that Activity Committee (there are 9 Activity Committees). That qualification requirement is in the bylaws and seems not to be in question.

Appointed Directors need only be residents of CA and members of CRPA. I believe there's no problem with that part, either.

I think I recall discussion suggesting that the affirmed mission of CRPA - "dedicated to defending the rights of law-abiding citizens to responsibly use firearms for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, for sport, and for all other legal activities" - is not well covered by just expertise in one of the sporting aspects, thus the suggestion that differing interests and expertise might be an improvement. Opening BOD elections to the wider membership seems to be what was suggested to address that.

I think.

Mute
03-07-2012, 10:54 PM
This is the same crap I saw a couple years back and completely turned me off to the CRPA. It was the seeming change of culture that Gene, et al brought about that had convinced me to rejoin last year. If they start this crap up again, I' m done with this waste of gunowner's money passing itself off as a gun rights organization.

Chuck0matic
03-07-2012, 11:03 PM
It seemed funny to me that I had not heard of the CRPA before CalGuns, or if I did, it was not good. Now it all makes since. The CalGuns Foundation needs to jump on board with the NRA and smack own the rest of these laws.

CRPA will not be getting a renew by me, or my family. I will also post about it on FB, with many gun friends on it, who I personally asked to join the CRPA or Crapa

Monte
03-07-2012, 11:06 PM
For now: Campaign to force bylaw reform

Six months out, after the next BoD meeting, if there is not some significant changes to the CRPA Bylaws along the spirit of what Gene proposed, we then build a new gun owner / 2A org.

+1, though I'd support whichever plan gets a majority vote at this point.

Ryan_D
03-07-2012, 11:12 PM
This is on the CRPA's website:

An Open Message to the Membership of the CRPA
Posted on March 7, 2012 by admin
The Board of Directors of the California Rifle and Pistol Association recently concluded its annual meeting in Ontario. The meeting was held over a two-day period and a variety of topics were discussed. Some of the most contentious and controversial but extremely important discussions centered on the Association’s bylaws. The CRPA bylaws are regularly modified and amended to meet the needs of the Association and its membership and to conform to state law governing organizations such as ours. Over the last 8 to 12 months the CRPA, in consultation with its corporate attorney, has completed a thorough audit and review of our bylaws to make sure that they comply with applicable laws as they relate to our operation. As a result of our efforts, the CRPA bylaws were revised to comply with state law.

Much discussion also centered on making the CRPA and its board more transparent, accessible, and open to member feedback and input. We have already come a long way in this area. For example, the CRPA board extended an invitation to the membership to attend our annual meeting and observe the board in action as it conducted the business of our Association. Much discussion also centered on qualifications for board members and the mechanism for members of the Association to become members of the Board of Directors. It is important to note that there were two extremes of opinions. On the one extreme, there were those who felt that very minimal requirements and qualifications should be needed to run for a position on the board. On the other extreme, there were those who felt that more comprehensive requirements and qualifications should be needed to run for a position on the board. The position that eventually came to the forefront was somewhere in between the two extremes. This is the position where the board currently stands. That is to say, the membership of the CRPA entrusts us not only with their financial support and resources but with their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. This is not only a great honor for the leadership of our organization, but it is also a great responsibility. It is one that we take on seriously and with great care. It is in this spirit, and in the best interests of the Association, its members and the battle for our Second Amendment rights in California, to have candidates for the Board of Directors who possess enumerated and specific qualifications for candidacy. All of us want a CRPA that is responsive and responsible to its members. The balance between qualified, viable candidates and broad accessibility is constantly evaluated and modified as required.

The contentious and fractious nature of some of these issues has caused certain third parties, web forums and blog sites within the Second Amendment community in California to take aim at the CRPA. The Association was put on notice by some of these
entities that if it does not make the changes they desire there would be considerable backlash, an anti-CRPA message generated, and even possible legal action to force the Association to make their changes. Unfortunately, many of these “reformers” are also CRPA members. Rest assured that we will fight any attempt to weaken or compromise our Association in order to appease a small but very vocal minority within the California Second Amendment community. The CRPA represents over 30,000 firearms owners, hobbyists and sportsmen and does everything possible to protect and further the interests of all California gun owners, not just a small minority. Over the coming weeks and months you may see and hear statements and ideas that are not only untrue, but detrimental and damaging to not only the CRPA and its members, but to all gun owners in this state. I ask all of you to consider the truth and the facts as outlined.

We all have disagreements within the pro-firearms community. The vast majority of those disagreements are dealt with in private and amongst the concerned parties. Having public battles with groups who should all be working together towards a common goal and message benefits no one but our common enemies. Over the last few years, the California Rifle and Pistol Association has been resurgent and reclaiming its proud, traditional role as the premier pro-Second Amendment organization in the state of California. Our recently concluded Gala and awards banquet was a huge success and is just one example of where this Association is headed. We have made great strides in terms of modernizing and streamlining our operations and overall image and also having an organization that is more transparent and responsive to its members. We will continue to assess, make necessary changes and revise our operations in terms of board member qualifications and accessibility and transparency and openness, in a thoughtful, methodical and responsible manner. It is in the interests of transparency and keeping our members informed that we wanted to inform you of what may be happening in the near future. We will come out of this current controversy much stronger, more united and more powerful!

We thank you for your support. We are humbled by the responsibility you have entrusted in us on your behalf and we will do everything we can to live up to that responsibility and continue the forward progress of the CRPA on behalf of not only our members but the entire pro Second Amendment community in California!

We won’t let you down. God bless America and God bless California!

On behalf of the CRPA leadership team and Board of Directors,

Tony Montanarella, President

February 2012 ELECTION/APPOINTMENT RESULTS
* – Committee Chairman

President
Tony Montanarella

Vice President
Jim Shea
Secretary
Bob Anderson
Treasurer
Arlin Penner

Executive Council
Tom Thomas
Executive Committee
Jim Shea *
Steve Dember
Joel Friedman
Tom Gaines
Tom Thomas
Herb Williams

Nominating Committee
Barry Bauer
Rob Cobez
Steve Dember
Joel Friedman
Walt Mansell
Tom Thomas
Herb Williams

Bylaws & Resolution Committee
Steve Dember *
Mike Barranco
Barry Bauer
Walt Mansell
Jacob Rascon
Joseph Richards

Finance Committee
Arlin Penner *
Alan Edwards
Tom Gaines
Michael Peters
Joseph Richards
Tom Thomas
Bill Wiese
Herb Williams

Law Enforcement Committee
Paul Dougherty *
Alan Edwards
Michael Miller
Ronald Langford

Communications & Technology
Jason Horn *
Mike Barranco
Joshua Berger
Luis Bernardez
Rob Cobez
Paul Nordberg
Fred Oey
Tony Tello
Tim Wheeler
Bill Wiese

Carry License Committee
Tom Thomas *
Paul Dougherty
Joel Friedman
Paul Nordberg
Gerald Setty

Legislative Policy Committee
Joel Friedman *
Barry Bauer
Luis Bernardez
Paul Dougherty
Gene McCarthy
Joseph Richards
Tim Wheeler
Herb Williams

Multi-Gun (Exploratory)
Rob Cobez *
James Ingram
Jonathan Monroe

Shotgun (Exploratory)
Rob Cobez *

Civilian Marksmanship Program Committee
Bob Zio *
Randall Bimrose
James Ingram
Michael Miller

Employee Compensation Review
Tom Thomas *
Joel Friedman
Tom Gaines

Investment Portfolio Review
Steve Dember *
Gary Daniel
Joel Friedman
Michael Peters
Tom Thomas
Herb Williams

Note: Gene Hoffman and Brett Thomas were not re-appointed.

Carnivore
03-07-2012, 11:18 PM
As I am not a member of the CRPA I would vote for #2 but that is from a ignorant point of view as I am with the rest not knowing what is going on.

speedrrracer
03-07-2012, 11:41 PM
Since you asked Calgunners what CRPA should do, I'd say:

Find the people who threw Gene, et al out the door
and throw those people out the door.

The go find Gene, et al, and beg them on bended knee to come back and set things aright.

berto
03-08-2012, 12:02 AM
Perestroika and glasnost.

Stonewalker
03-08-2012, 12:07 AM
Perestroika and glasnost.

This is about where I am. I want gun rights, not "shooting sports"

Ryan_D
03-08-2012, 12:21 AM
Originally Posted by berto
Perestroika and glasnost.
This is about where I am. I want gun rights, not "shooting sports"

Shooting sports is a slippery slope. What sports will we be shooting? Who gets to decide? What criteria will we use? Who gets to pick the person(s) that decide which sports we shoot?

sholling
03-08-2012, 12:27 AM
It bothers me a lot that board membership is not open to ordinary or at least life members. Restricting board membership to a tiny group of insiders gives the appearance of a small but thoroughly entrenched good old boys club operating at the expense of a large disenfranchised membership. On the other hand no one forced us to join CRPA and I'm never been a fan of joining an organization and then immediately demanding it change to fit my idea of what it should have been. Both ideas stink to high heaven.

If I had known what I know now I would not have bought a life membership in the CRPA or even a single year but there is no reason for us not to form a new and better organization. We can offer members the promise of a real voice in the direction of the organization and demonstrable efforts to secure their rights but the board would have to be open to any life member that was approved by the voting membership and that may not make the founders happy either. We'd also have the challenge of building a diversified shooting sports (not just rights) organization from scratch. Now the next question is who do we contact at CRPA for refunds? ;)

Stonewalker
03-08-2012, 12:29 AM
Originally Posted by berto
Perestroika and glasnost.
This is about where I am. I want gun rights, not "shooting sports"

Shooting sports is a slippery slope. What sports will we be shooting? Who gets to decide? What criteria will we use? Who gets to pick the person(s) that decide which sports we shoot?

Exactly. I joined CGF because I value liberty and civil rights. Shooting sports hasn't got a damn thing to do with either. Civil rights means the poorest of the poor in the most crime-ridden areas of Oakland should be able to carry a gun to defend against gansters and thugs. "Shooting sports" couldn't give less of a damn about those impoverished people in those crappy situations.

I'm still waiting for CRPA to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

Rekrab
03-08-2012, 3:24 AM
I'd like to see the CRPA be made into a transparent, legal organization. I think any other org would have a hard time getting the kind of NRA backing that the CRPA already does. I'd like to see the CGN and CGF communities help guide the CRPA back to a true civil liberties organization that can lobby at the highest levels of state government and affect change.

The CalGuns Foundation is an amazing organization and has done countless good things for human rights in California. However, CGF is smaller, poorer, and a lot dirtier(in a good way) than the CRPA. We need to treat the CRPA as our big brother that we can call on the big bullies, while CGF is handling the small bullies at the local level.

Irish Gunner
03-08-2012, 7:49 AM
Prior to this I was considering a CRPA membership. I thought, mistakenly that they were another pro 2A advocacy organization that could work together with CGF, SAF and the NRA to protect my rights.

As I am now learning, the CRPA is geared more toward and represented by competitive shooters more than any other. I have no desire to shoot competitively. I am for the time being a target shooter that likes to push myself in my own time. I may again hunt as well. I don't think we need a new organization, nor does the CRPA need to reform.

A tiger can't change its stripes and the CRPA is what it is. They just aren't a fit for me and the SAF of CGF will be getting the money that had been set aside for CRPA membership. I think that the third option to this poll should just be to pick the horse that fits you best and ride it. Unfortunately I think it may have come to an either/or decision and one of my recent "friends" from CGN who is a competitive shooter has chosen to distance herself from CGN in this political mess.

I do think that it is wrong for an organization to take money from members that they wouldn't ever allow to be on the board. Just because a person doesn't compete, doesn't mean they can't contribute.

Left Coast Conservative
03-08-2012, 7:55 AM
Should we:

A) campaign to force bylaw reform
B) Create a full service gun owner 2.0 organization

What I want is for the CRPA to become the standard bearer in the litigation battles to come that will win our firearms rights, somewhat like the ISRA. Which of the above options would best lead to that outcome?

greasemonkey
03-08-2012, 8:46 AM
Do you mean 'legislative' battles?What I want is for the CRPA to become the standard bearer in the litigation battles to come that will win our firearms rights, somewhat like the ISRA. Which of the above options would best lead to that outcome?

lhecker51
03-08-2012, 9:44 AM
I have watched & seen the work calguns has done towards getting California to come in line with most of the rest of the country. What has the CRPA accomplished?

When someone suggests a group such as CRPA change their bylaws to come into compliance with state laws & they are thrown off the board that group seems to have motives that may be contrary to what California gun owners, not just those in specific clubs, but all gun owners want.

The men that were removed from the board have always appeared to me to be not only reputable, but very knowledgable of gun laws.

I am therefore wary of the CRPA & do not trust them to help protect my 2nd Amendment rights.

Could it be that CRPA executive leadership is in cahoots with anti-gun politicians and that Gene & Brett are a threat? I am interested in the minutes of the meeting regarding the motivations to not re-appoint them. It does not look good for CRPA when they publish a public hit-piece and then close all comment on their blog. You can still go to their facebook page and let them know that we all see their actions and the blow back from our "small group" will take a whale sized chunk out of their arse.

socal2310
03-08-2012, 10:19 AM
I voted for the first option, but will ultimately follow the lead of the CGF. As an alternative to either of the above options how about a campaign to force the CRPA to adopt an honest mission statement?

Unless there is some way to remove the executive board, I don't think we are going to see any meaningful change in the organization - there is no way for them to save face if they back down from "throwing down the gauntlet" as it were.

Ryan

Uxi
03-08-2012, 10:26 AM
Another group would just dilute and divide so I'd say reform. I'm currently lapsed on my CRPA membership, though, and this does give me reason to consider NOT correcting that.

Meplat
03-08-2012, 10:29 AM
A. Will result in B. being achieved. That is the point of A.
But don’t hold your breath those who have power will not give it up willingly.

SanPedroShooter
03-08-2012, 10:30 AM
Can we do the second without the first? Can I vote for number one, then number two?

EDIT: I read the poll to quickly, I thought you were speaking within the context of the CRPA. I would like to see the board brought into line with NRA norms, or at least made more transparent.

If I wanted to join a shooting club, my local range has one. CRPA need to kick *** and take names, similar to CGF and SAF. Besides, dont they only spend a tiny part of thier budget on actual shooting stuff? I thought I saw it was only like 6 grand out a few hundred thousand. I could be off, info has been hard to come by; see transparency issues.

dustoff31
03-08-2012, 10:35 AM
I voted for start a new organization. I see the CRPA issue just like any other "machine". Eventually all machines breakdown and must be repaired. But when you must continually repair them, or perhaps during the repair you find other damage, well, eventually you decide it simply isn't worth the effort and just throw it in the trash and get a new one.

And I say this not to be controversial, but there are a great many here who often crow about what a tremendous political force Calguns and it's members are. Whether it be within the current structure or by means of a new organization, maybe it's time to demonstrate that.

Yugo
03-08-2012, 10:37 AM
I'm on board to fix things but if it can't be resolved I'm with gene and the rest of the guys that got put out, I also want to see laws for our rights not just sport shooting.

spgripside
03-08-2012, 12:35 PM
I voted for the first option, but will ultimately follow the lead of the CGF. As an alternative to either of the above options how about a campaign to force the CRPA to adopt an honest mission statement?
From what I see, CRPA leadership has been unable or unwilling to follow all the objectives set forth in the mission statement. This failure needs to be addressed, but not by adopting the mission statement to the current reality.

CRPA Mission Statement

To oppose any actions which the Association believes infringe upon the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United State of America.

To oppose any actions which the Association believes infringe upon the inalienable rights of the individual citizen to defend life and liberty, to protect property, and to pursue and obtain safety as guaranteed by Article I, Section I of the Constitution of the State of California.

To impart to the general public a better knowledge of the proper use and care of firearms and each citizenís rights as to such use.

To provide educational information to the public regarding firearms use and abuse.

To make Association facilities available to the public for training in firearms use and to encourage more active participation by the general public in organized firearms sportsmanship events.

To work with other sportsmen and wildlife groups to ensure proper management and respect for our wildlife resources and to encourage public education concerning these resources.

To sponsor public events which contribute to public awareness of the proper use of firearms and the spirit of cooperation and discipline that is derived from that activity.

To sponsor safe and intelligent legislation to support firearms education and proper use, wildlife conservation and management, and other matters relating to firearms use in California.

To sponsor Association teams to compete in National Rifle Association (NRA) and Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) National Championships.

Unless there is some way to remove the executive board, I don't think we are going to see any meaningful change in the organization - there is no way for them to save face if they back down from "throwing down the gauntlet" as it were.
This seems to be the core problem that needs to be solved to save our CRPA, and allow it to represent the membership as they choose to be represented.

Ryan_D
03-08-2012, 1:03 PM
Well...one of the big differences you can see is that CRPA BOD is chosen by those already sitting on key committees, etc. while CGF is here asking us as members what direction we would want them to go.

Ubermcoupe
03-08-2012, 1:26 PM
Perestroika and glasnost.

Excellent Reference! :)

lhecker51
03-08-2012, 1:47 PM
I voted for the first option, but will ultimately follow the lead of the CGF. As an alternative to either of the above options how about a campaign to force the CRPA to adopt an honest mission statement?

Unless there is some way to remove the executive board, I don't think we are going to see any meaningful change in the organization - there is no way for them to save face if they back down from "throwing down the gauntlet" as it were.

Ryan

CRPA needs to be disaffiliated by the NRA NOW! As a life member, should we as NRA members actively petition the NRA to disaffiliate them as CRPA has been missing in action on most significant legislation and has actually supported anti 2A positions in Sacramento? Tony Montanarella is a corrupt cancer that has now consumed the organization.

lhecker51
03-08-2012, 1:52 PM
Why don't you Calgunners tell us what to do next?

With all the current turmoil between the CRPA and Calguns.net, it is important that the community speaks up and tells us what you want.

So lets hold a simply poll.
Should we:

A) campaign for bylaw reform
B) Create a full service gun owner 2.0 organization

CRPA top leadership has now become corrupt and no longer fulfills their mission statement. I say they should be disaffiliated from the NRA and disbanded. There is no hope as it will be impossible to change the by-laws as written. I voted for option #2.

TaxAnnihilator
03-08-2012, 1:58 PM
Before we can have "shooting sports" we need firearm rights.

While I understand that human nature almost assures that any organization larger than 1 will not be 100% unified, the current trend in the CRPA is not only against developing a unified voice, it is promoting fractionalization of that voice.

If CRPA is not prepared to play a prominent and effective role/voice in the RKBA legislative matters and will not permit its members to help define that role/voice, it should be valued for it's limited purpose as a "shooting club" and those who value the RKBA must organize locally and coordinate nationally.

Therefore, my answer to the poll is a question, would those in the know please provide a timeline for when we might see CRPA make those adjustments necessary to enable it to be a viable and responsive actor in the RKBA arena?

Then, if they cannot meet that, my answer is that we form a new organization.

wildhawker
03-08-2012, 2:13 PM
I commented on this previously, here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8158466&postcount=270).

-Brandon

would those in the know please provide a timeline for when we might see CRPA make those adjustments necessary to enable it to be a viable and responsive actor in the RKBA arena?

lhecker51
03-08-2012, 2:13 PM
Is this like a East Coast/West Coast - Biggie vs Tupac kinda thing?


If so, it's best that both sides find some common ground, cling to it, and let everyone benefit from the byproduct of co-operation.


A lack of unity is exactly what we don't need, especially in CA.

Catharsis Anyone?

The problem is that CRPA is the one making it a public forum with their hit piece. The top leadership's motivations are self serving and self preservation while they do nothing on the 2A legislative battlefront. They are too corrupt at the top and need to go. Disaffiliation by the NRA would send a strong message to the most ineffective 2A org in California. The executive leadership at the top has grown fat on the dues of it's members while they sponsor competitions yet do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on the legislative front. Their by-laws are written in a way to ensure power is centralized and controlled at the top with no effective input from the membership. They control who gets admitted to the inner sanctum of their organization. Tony Montanarella has stated that it is HIS organization. I guess the membership are his subjects that he gladly abuses as is his right as King of the CRPA.

Unfortunately, the CRPA's arrogance cannot go unchallenged and they will be brought into alignment or suffer. We have enough support within Calguns and CGF to carry on the mission that CRPA has only payed lip service to and has outright abandoned.. When you have been missing in action the entire time, you can't show up and state "all will be lost if I am cast out" as you were never there to begin with. The train has left the station and Tony Montanarella is no longer on it.

The damage has been done and nothing short of a top leadership enema will be effective so that the by-laws can be brought into alignment as Gene has stated in other threads. It does no good to negotiate with tyrants.

bruceflinch
03-08-2012, 2:22 PM
If your wife leaves you, or kicks you out, how do you stay together?

At that point, it's time to move on.

You may not end up together, but since you're committed, it is your duty to make their life as miserable as possible. :43:

If all the CRPA Membership makes a stink & the BOD refuses to cave, then in the next year we withdraw & leave the CRPA to it's own demise.

Ryan_D
03-08-2012, 2:24 PM
There is, of course, nothing wrong with being a Competitive Shooting organization. But if the CRPA is truly stuck in neutral when it comes to the legal and political battles associated with 2A causes, then what use are they to those of us whom are passionate about that aspect of the 2A conversation? I kind of see the CRPA Homepage open letter as an attempt to circle the wagons and smear the two member that were not re-appointed. It seems like they are pro-actively trying to launch a campaign to retain membership, and by extension, membership dues and their own position of influence within the organization. Does anyone see it differently? Am I reading this wrong or am I ill-informed?

Uxi
03-08-2012, 2:31 PM
There is, of course, nothing wrong with being a Competitive Shooting organization. But if the CRPA is truly stuck in neutral when it comes to the legal and political battles associated with 2A causes, then what use are they to those of us whom are passionate about that aspect of the 2A conversation? I kind of see the CRPA Homepage open letter as an attempt to circle the wagons and smear the two member that were not re-appointed. It seems like they are pro-actively trying to launch a campaign to retain membership, and by extension, membership dues and their own position of influence within the organization. Does anyone see it differently? Am I reading this wrong or am I ill-informed?

I think you read it right, though the link to the 2008 discussion in the other thread shows deeper roots and hints at the other PoV. I definitely don't like the sounds of the leadership of CRPA but this makes me uncomfortable at the eating of our own, sort of like the reaction to the open carry guys. We end up weaker, though more homogenous, and perhaps better focused. Do CGF and CGN need to be mutually exclusive with CRPA?

I sort of accept that CRPA isn't as effective on the 2nd Amendment legal or lobbying side. I'm not happy with it, I joined as the best option to get a Garand through CMP, which is also an important avenue to support our side it without being a blatant political lobbying arm that automatically makes people reject it the way they do the NRA (of which I'm also a member).

TaxAnnihilator
03-08-2012, 2:32 PM
I commented on this previously, here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8158466&postcount=270).

-Brandon

Poll answered. Round up the troops, we're moving on!

lhecker51
03-08-2012, 2:35 PM
There is, of course, nothing wrong with being a Competitive Shooting organization. But if the CRPA is truly stuck in neutral when it comes to the legal and political battles associated with 2A causes, then what use are they to those of us whom are passionate about that aspect of the 2A conversation? I kind of see the CRPA Homepage open letter as an attempt to circle the wagons and smear the two member that were not re-appointed. It seems like they are pro-actively trying to launch a campaign to retain membership, and by extension, membership dues and their own position of influence within the organization. Does anyone see it differently? Am I reading this wrong or am I ill-informed?

If they are not going to fight for 2A on the legislative front as evidenced by their absence, then they need to pull it from their mission statement and quit defrauding their members. They have the backing of several politicians that really do appreciate that they are absent from the legislative front. Tony Montanarella's actions lead me to suspect he is either extremely incompetent, in the pocket of politicians or both. I see it the way you do.

lhecker51
03-08-2012, 2:40 PM
Poll answered. Round up the troops, we're moving on!

I predict that CRPA will experience an immediate hemorrhaging of membership jumping a corrupt ship. The question now is after the NRA disaffiliates, what form will the new organization take that is born from this?

lhecker51
03-08-2012, 2:46 PM
I commented on this previously, here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8158466&postcount=270).

-Brandon
Agreed. There is no indication that they are willing to reform. On the contrary, the indications are that of stagnation and top leadership self interest. They hide behind by-laws and ignore their membership's legitimate question of "what have you done for me lately, and exactly what have you EVER done?". Time for tar and feathers if king Tony refuses to heed the majority membership and step down.

Mute
03-08-2012, 3:02 PM
My next communication with the NRA will be for disaffiliation with the CRPA. I'm tired of their old boys network thriving on membership money.

jorgyusa
03-08-2012, 3:12 PM
I joined CRPA last year thinking they might be in reform mode with Gene's influence. When the renewal came this year, I hesitated. I am not sure why I didn't send in the renewal but am now glad that I did not. If you can't change the group for the good then the best solution is a new group. Has anyone considered GOC as an organization to build upon? Seems to me that they are strongly aligned in the gun rights movement and might welcome some more help.

Californio
03-08-2012, 3:13 PM
Discuss all you want.

I'm on board with whatever Gene, Brandon, Brett, et al recommend.

Just waiting on marching orders from the right people.

.

Agreed, they have not done us wrong yet.

Southwest Chuck
03-08-2012, 3:40 PM
For now: Campaign to force bylaw reform

Six months out, after the next BoD meeting, if there is not some significant changes to the CRPA Bylaws along the spirit of what Gene proposed, we then build a new gun owner / 2A org. I agree, a timeline/deadline is a must. However, I'm of the opinion that the E.C. and Board are too entrenched and will not willingly reform itself and have Bylaws in place that ensure that membership cannot oust them. Read "futile" here on any attempts at changing the status quo, IMHO. Remember, we're only a "SMALL BUT VOCAL" group, and not representative of overall membership

Discuss all you want.

I'm on board with whatever Gene, Brandon, Brett, et al recommend.
These men see the writing on the wall at CRPA (my belief), and realize it could take "Years" to accomplish reform, time we don't have to waste. The real question is, "What kind of organization can we build in that same time-frame?"

.

If your wife leaves you, or kicks you out, how do you stay together?

At that point, it's time to move on. Agreed. See Above

This is the same crap I saw a couple years back and completely turned me off to the CRPA. It was the seeming change of culture that Gene, et al brought about that had convinced me to rejoin last year. If they start this crap up again, I' m done with this waste of gunowner's money passing itself off as a gun rights organization.
It was a Noble and Valiant attempt at resurrecting the CRPA. One that HAD to be made. At some point, one has to re-evaluate the chances of success in developing the CRPA into a Premier CA Gun-rights Organization

Since you asked Calgunners what CRPA should do, I'd say:

Find the people who threw Gene, et al out the door
and throw those people out the door. Sounds Good, but unlikely given the current structure and entrench hierarchy, again, IMO.

The go find Gene, et al, and beg them on bended knee to come back and set things aright. Enough time and resources have been wasted by these fine Gentlemen. I would rather see them start a fresh organization focusing on CA 2A rights and let CRPA be a small niche shooting sports club/association

It bothers me a lot that board membership is not open to ordinary or at least life members. Restricting board membership to a tiny group of insiders gives the appearance of a small but thoroughly entrenched good old boys club operating at the expense of a large disenfranchised membership. (Appearance my A**. That's exactly what it is. The changes Gene wanted would have allowed an evolution in leadership (and vision) to take place, albeit in a slow controlled manner). ...... but there is no reason for us not to form a new and better organization. We can offer members the promise of a real voice in the direction of the organization and demonstrable efforts to secure their rights but the board would have to be open to any life member that was approved by the voting membership.... Agreed

I voted for start a new organization. I see the CRPA issue just like any other "machine". Eventually all machines breakdown and must be repaired. But when you must continually repair them, or perhaps during the repair you find other damage, well, eventually you decide it simply isn't worth the effort and just throw it in the trash and get a new one.

And I say this not to be controversial, but there are a great many here who often crow about what a tremendous political force Calguns and it's members are. Whether it be within the current structure or by means of a new organization, maybe it's time to demonstrate that.
:thumbsup:


Before we can have "shooting sports" we need firearm rights.
......

If CRPA is not prepared to play a prominent and effective role/voice in the RKBA legislative matters and will not permit its members to help define that role/voice, it should be valued for it's limited purpose as a "shooting club" and those who value the RKBA must organize locally and coordinate nationally.
^^^ This


... Just my opinion on things. Worth what you paid for it ;)

SC

...

proclone1
03-09-2012, 10:02 AM
if calguns wants calgunners to support them, they need to explain the issues better. i've been reading threads about it for over an hour now and i still cant figure out what the root issues are.

in any case i do not want to see the gun lobby in california fractured into opposing camps. division is death to any social movement.

^^^^^^^^^^ THIS.

Since trying to research what is going on, and doing my best to listen to both sides of the argument (of which I can barely tell what the hell is going on with everyone holding their cards close to their chests), I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with everything.

This is going to be extremely unpopular here, and I want to say that I really appreciate everything that Calguns stands for, but I want to see actual proof of what CGF has *themselves* accomplished.

I attribute 100% of what knowledge of CA (and fed!) gun laws I have to this forum. There's a great marketplace/classifieds section, and I greatly enjoy the firearms discussion sections. However, when it comes to actually Getting Things Done and *not* just Reporting on things that perhaps Others have gotten done, all I have to currently go on is this post of Gene's: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8095584&postcount=111

1. Much of the board helped popularize OLLs.
- Would the popularity of OLL's have been inevitable even if CGF never existed?

2. Shepherding the bullet button into existence and defending it legally.
- Can anyone explain the shepherding that took place, and is there a list of cases directly defended by a board member of CGF?

3. Getting Sacramento shall issue
- Is there a way to show how this was directly impacted by CGF's direct actions? I have heard that Sacramento going S-I was more about another sheriff being elected who was more amenable to LTC

4. Cleaning up a bunch of counties' issuance.
- Again I ask for an answer similar to #2

Please note, I ask this not in a PROVE IT!! way, but in a way that I'd like material to show to the non-calgunner who wants to see evidence of what CGF does and doesn't want just one-liners of what it purports to do. Because I've had people like that ask me and I honestly can't tell them any specifics, and it actually made me ask just what I *had* donated $100 to. I have this feeling (and this is my fault, I point the finger at no one but myself and it's a lesson learned) that I've donated money to something that I haven't properly researched.

I see a lot on this forum of "Yeah we're going to take on the anti's! Donate now!" and get excited and put in my CC info, but what I don't see is "here's the direct result of your money". I want evidence to show people who are critical of CGF as "genuine believers in 2A, but outspoken piggybackers on other people/groups who are actually out there litigating" such as Alan Gura. I don't belong to any organizations, and if you look at my post history it's clear that I'm not a shill.

I've thought for a couple days how to word this post without seeming like a punk, but for the first time I've realized that I've let wishful thinking carry me forward without taking time to step back and ask what is being done. "2 Weeks" isn't cutting it for me anymore.

SanPedroShooter
03-09-2012, 10:21 AM
"I've thought for a couple days how to word this post without seeming like a punk..."

In my opinion, you failed. You've been here since 2009, and you dont know the answers to any of those questions?

And as for not belonging to any organizations, I suppose I could ask, what stake do you have in the matter? You say you've donated money, if I can relate my post to yours, I should ask to see your receipts....

I will let the CGF board defend themselves on specific points. I have heard people criticize CGF before, but I have never seen anyone question their ability or their contribution. I am suprised at someone with as much time around this forum as you have to ask a variation of, 'what have you done for me lately, or more specifically, ever'...

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 10:29 AM
proclone1,

How can you claim that those of us championing reform and democracy are "holding [our] cards close to [our] chests"?

-Brandon

cvc04
03-09-2012, 10:54 AM
I thought I saw in another thread that Gene wanted CRPA people to vote for him in the next election so he could get changes enacted then he would resign. It would be better to take over CPRA than start a competing org. That's my two cents.

jdberger
03-09-2012, 10:58 AM
I'll take a quick stab at this. (please forgive me if I leave someone out)


1. Much of the board helped popularize OLLs.
- Would the popularity of OLL's have been inevitable even if CGF never existed?

Would someone have eventually come up with the lightbulb without Thomas Edison. Maybe. Probably. But CGF Directors were directly responsible for the shepherding and import of tens of thousands of off-list lower recievers. CGF Director Wes Morris was one of the first importers of OLL recievers. He took a lot of heat for it too. Director Bill Weise visited hundreds of gun shops explaining both the law and how the stores could actually profit from the sales of OLLs and OLL accessories. Former Director Ben Cannon was the organizor of one of the first large "group buys" - and when his OLLs were seized by DOJ for specious reasons, Director Gene Hoffman took the lead in getting them back.


2. Shepherding the bullet button into existence and defending it legally.
- Can anyone explain the shepherding that took place, and is there a list of cases directly defended by a board member of CGF?

Director Gene Hoffman was also the inventor of the Bullet Button, the design which was offered without restriction, to anyone who wanted to manufacture it.


3. Getting Sacramento shall issue
- Is there a way to show how this was directly impacted by CGF's direct actions? I have heard that Sacramento going S-I was more about another sheriff being elected who was more amenable to LTC

Director Brandon Combs has been running the California Sunshine Initiative for (I think) about 2 years now. Using his work, CGF sued Sacramento County over their LTC policies. Sacto caved. The new Sheriff can spin that however he wants.


4. Cleaning up a bunch of counties' issuance.
- Again I ask for an answer similar to #2

Please see the previous entry re the Sunshine Initiative.

jdoane9724
03-09-2012, 10:59 AM
:oji:
An abstract idea from someone who IANAL and is presently NOT active in ANY form of sport shoothing.

Why not keep both? Wait now, here me out:

NRA caters to both shooting sports and legal/legislative arenas, so why can't CRPA adjust to tend EXCLUSIVELY to the shooting sports arena while maintaining their NRA affilliations to allow local contestants to copete in national events, and CalGuns handle the legal/legislative concerns, also keeping THEIR relavent NRA connections intact?

You now have the best of both worlds; an organization where shooting can be done politics-free, and another that focuses on 2A issues?

A "Gentlemen's agreement" could be in place to work together where common goals exist, i.e., if laws are passed to restrict hunting or lead ammo in areas, CRPA educates the shooters; CalGuns beats up the legislators....?

It's a real rough idea, fueled by not enough coffee, but could something like that happen?

John :chris:

eaglemike
03-09-2012, 11:09 AM
^^^^^^^^^^ THIS.

Since trying to research what is going on, and doing my best to listen to both sides of the argument (of which I can barely tell what the hell is going on with everyone holding their cards close to their chests), I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with everything.

This is going to be extremely unpopular here, and I want to say that I really appreciate everything that Calguns stands for, but I want to see actual proof of what CGF has *themselves* accomplished.

I attribute 100% of what knowledge of CA (and fed!) gun laws I have to this forum. There's a great marketplace/classifieds section, and I greatly enjoy the firearms discussion sections. However, when it comes to actually Getting Things Done and *not* just Reporting on things that perhaps Others have gotten done, all I have to currently go on is this post of Gene's: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8095584&postcount=111

1. Much of the board helped popularize OLLs.
- Would the popularity of OLL's have been inevitable even if CGF never existed?

2. Shepherding the bullet button into existence and defending it legally.
- Can anyone explain the shepherding that took place, and is there a list of cases directly defended by a board member of CGF?

3. Getting Sacramento shall issue
- Is there a way to show how this was directly impacted by CGF's direct actions? I have heard that Sacramento going S-I was more about another sheriff being elected who was more amenable to LTC

4. Cleaning up a bunch of counties' issuance.
- Again I ask for an answer similar to #2

Please note, I ask this not in a PROVE IT!! way, but in a way that I'd like material to show to the non-calgunner who wants to see evidence of what CGF does and doesn't want just one-liners of what it purports to do. Because I've had people like that ask me and I honestly can't tell them any specifics, and it actually made me ask just what I *had* donated $100 to. I have this feeling (and this is my fault, I point the finger at no one but myself and it's a lesson learned) that I've donated money to something that I haven't properly researched.

I see a lot on this forum of "Yeah we're going to take on the anti's! Donate now!" and get excited and put in my CC info, but what I don't see is "here's the direct result of your money". I want evidence to show people who are critical of CGF as "genuine believers in 2A, but outspoken piggybackers on other people/groups who are actually out there litigating" such as Alan Gura. I don't belong to any organizations, and if you look at my post history it's clear that I'm not a shill.

I've thought for a couple days how to word this post without seeming like a punk, but for the first time I've realized that I've let wishful thinking carry me forward without taking time to step back and ask what is being done. "2 Weeks" isn't cutting it for me anymore.
I'm surprised that you are asking these particular questions. These issues have rec'd a LOT of discussion on this forum since I've been a member. Your questions are well answered above. You might also take a look at the Cal Guns Foundation pages that describe the successful defenses provided to those that were arrested and/or had their weapons confiscated - even though they were legal. There are a LOT of other stories of support provided or phone calls made to educate LEA/LEO or defense attorneys that resulted in dropped cases.

I am not aware of the CRPA taking an active role in any of these efforts.

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 11:12 AM
Director Brandon Combs has been running the California Sunshine Initiative for (I think) about 2 years now. Using his work, CGF sued Sacramento County over their LTC policies. Sacto caved. The new Sheriff can spin that however he wants.

In the interest of the record, I need to make once correction here: Sykes v. McGinness, now Richards v. Prieto, was the Alan Gura/SAF/CGF kickoff to 2A 'bear' constitutional litigation in the states and predated the Initiative. Gray and I were working with some jurisdictions around that time albeit on a smaller scale than we see today with the Initiaitive.

-Brandon

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 11:15 AM
I am not aware of the CRPA taking an active role in any of these efforts.

That's not quite true. If we didn't come up with new programs and do all the legwork as unpaid volunteers, they wouldn't have anything to emulate.

-Brandon

Purple K
03-09-2012, 11:16 AM
And "poof" my comments are gone! To the moderator that deleted it, please post why. I didn't violate terms of service.

tankerman
03-09-2012, 11:17 AM
I think if you combine the two organizations, you may see a decrease in donations/funding as some folks are currently giving to both orgs.

NoJoke
03-09-2012, 11:19 AM
How about this, tell me how to cast my vote so that I may bear and keep arms with little to no restriction....ya know, kinda like it's written in that out of date document.

Shall issue -NOW- in CA is specifically what I'm interested in.

Kestryll
03-09-2012, 11:23 AM
And "poof" my comments are gone! To the moderator that deleted it, please post why. I didn't violate terms of service.

Yes, they are gone and yes you did break the rules.

A) This thread is NOT about an individual it is asking a question.
Your post making accusations based on speculation were not on topic nor constructive.

B) Your blanket assertion of an opinion as fact, 'like all cops..' was again not on topic nor constructive to the discussion ans was LEO bashing.

high_revs
03-09-2012, 11:23 AM
I don't want to give my money to a good ol' boy's shooting club. I want to give my money to grassroots civil rights/ gun rights groups. I thought CRPA was that, or was at least partly that. I'm not going to vote until I know a little more.

this for me.

SanPedroShooter
03-09-2012, 11:27 AM
I will also point out that besides the Michael and Assoc. card in my wallet, I dont have the CRPA number on speed dial for emergencys....

I literaly sleep better at night knowing I can call CGF.

eaglemike
03-09-2012, 11:28 AM
That's not quite true. If we didn't come up with new programs and do all the legwork as unpaid volunteers, they wouldn't have anything to emulate.

-Brandon
Brandon,
I'm not sure what you are saying. I haven't seen any evidence of the CRPA taking any kind of role, they might be, but it's likely such a small role compared to the CGF that it's not worth mentioning. I know some of the CGF people are members and have some role in the CRPA. Based on what I've seen of the CRPA President's remarks, the role played by the CGF isn't worth mentioning in "his" organization.

I know the CGF is a volunteer organization. I really appreciate that. I know those people have skills I don't. So, I throw a few $K that way as I can, and also have provided a BB'd AR pattern carbine to the local NRA member's council for fund raising purposes the last 2 years.

I did read the (.pdf) history of 2008, seems like it was the 2012 situation in beta mode.

alfred1222
03-09-2012, 11:50 AM
I will also point out that besides the Michael and Assoc. card in my wallet, I dont have the CRPA number on speed dial for emergencys....

I literaly sleep better at night knowing I can call CGF.

Same... and i read everything thats been written here, and i think that forming a new group would be tough, but i would be willing to support it if the people running it are going to make it transparent and represent us and our fight to exercise our rights

Cnynrat
03-09-2012, 11:51 AM
I'm not sure how to answer the OP's question. Given the situation in this state regarding support for the 2A, the underlying objective should be to organize in a manner that maximizes our effectiveness with respect to pushing to recover those rights. I suspect having a single organization with that focus would be the most effective approach in the long run.

It is less clear to me that the singular "California 2A rights" organization needs to also be the focal point for organizing and supporting shooting sports events. There could be benefits in terms of maximizing outreach, but I could see two organizations, one with a focus on our rights and another with a focus on shooting sports, being able to coordinate to maximize outreach when needed because there would be less of a tendency for them to feel like they were competing with each other.

So the answer in my mind boils down to the following question: Given the recent events and where we are now, which is the most effective path to create a single organization focused on maintaining/recovering our 2A rights in California? I think those who are directly involved are in a better position to assess whether that is by reforming CRPA, or by starting with CGF, or some other alternative.

Personally, I'll be watching how the situation with CRPA plays out, and will make a decision about whether to continue my membership based on what has transpired between now and when my renewal rolls around.

proclone1
03-09-2012, 12:46 PM
I'll take a quick stab at this. (please forgive me if I leave someone out)



THANK YOU!! This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks also to Eaglemike for your input; I have honestly not stumbled on those discussions but JDBerger's answers were great. Brandon, thanks also for the clarification, it is coming back to me now.

"I've thought for a couple days how to word this post without seeming like a punk..."

In my opinion, you failed. You've been here since 2009, and you dont know the answers to any of those questions?

And as for not belonging to any organizations, I suppose I could ask, what stake do you have in the matter? You say you've donated money, if I can relate my post to yours, I should ask to see your receipts....

I will let the CGF board defend themselves on specific points. I have heard people criticize CGF before, but I have never seen anyone question their ability or their contribution. I am suprised at someone with as much time around this forum as you have to ask a variation of, 'what have you done for me lately, or more specifically, ever'...

I just knew something like this would happen. Look, all I was looking for was visual evidence to show others. You want a receipt, $100 in the grand scheme of things is so piddly (but not to me), it's not even worth bragging about if it wasn't true. Nonetheless here you are: http://i42.tinypic.com/34pgqwx.jpg

I don't see the problem in requesting evidence to support to both others and to myself the why of being here. It was not my intention to question the ability/contribution. Propaganda talks, facts walk.

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 1:29 PM
Brandon, thanks also for the clarification, it is coming back to me now.

My pleasure.

To be candid, I've been woefully behind in keeping our "What has CGF Done For Me Lately?" pages updated. Not to rationalize that failure of mine, but, for example, last night I was up until three a.m. this morning drafting the research framework for some upcoming litigation. I don't have a staff. CGF has no paid staff at all. (Conversely, CRPA spends about half of its ~$1.1Million budget on staff.) CGF is a group of passionate advocates who each bring different strengths to the table. Those strengths, the wisdom and competence of our counselors, and you - our supporters - make CGF very unique and extraordinarily special in contrast with many other organizations.

When time allows, I'll try and expand on our efforts here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1313572&postcount=1) and here (http://calgunsfoundation.org/about/what-has-cgf-done-for-me-lately.html).

-Brandon

Wherryj
03-09-2012, 2:00 PM
The quick summary is :

-Gene proposed changing the CRPA bylaws to (1) bring them in line with State law for members organizations and (2) allow for more adaptive, transparent and grassroots action within the CRPA. The rest of the board The 4 primary officers of the board responded by removing Gene and Brett from the board.

-President of CRPA sent out an email to all members today which seemed (to me) to be a hitpiece on Gene/CGF.

-For me personally, unless CRPA changes its tune quickly, I'll be revoking my membership soon. I still hope that it can become the grassroots RKBA group we all need though. Anybody should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

Wow, that doesn't seem like a reasonable reaction to a lawyer who is trying to help with advice to keep an organization legal. Knowing Gene's statements here at CG, CRPA would be better off listening to him. He seems well versed at what he does.

Californio
03-09-2012, 2:48 PM
I think the DREAM was the CRPA Lobbyist would be able to walk into Sacramento with 100,000 strong California Members and the backing of the NRA. That was the DREAM, now they can walk in with <30,000 and go back to the old ways that brought such fine laws as the "Safe Gun List", brought to you be Jerry/Kathy. I hope that is correct but I stand by for corrections.

It appears the DREAM is dead and the CRPA will keep loosing members as the bulk of Firearms Owners do not fit into their Model.

I was out doing Squirrel Control last weekend. One shooter had a newly minted Varmint AR with gold Radlock. I made sure he knew how and why he was able to buy that arm, the Org that fought for it and who deserved his donation. He had never heard of the CRPA, that was before the SHTF here.

I am a life member of CRPA and was a CRPA Foundation donor but only because of Gene.

dsmoot
03-09-2012, 3:23 PM
I don't really know how to answer the OP's poll, but I (a CRPA member) think that the CRPA should have the same purpose/mission as the NRA but in the state of CA. Now how this accomplished and managed with a Board of Directors (BoD) is not of that much importance to me. The important thing is that it WORKS!

What I have been seeing from the other thread is that the CRPA BoD are more focused on the shooting sports side of things, with committees for each type of shooting sport and not as focused on the 2A fight / self defense side of things. Now I may be only seeing one side of this, but that seems to be half the problem. The CRPA BoD has NOT done a good job of communicating its side of this discussion to its members.

The BoD has also not done a good job of communicating what the CRPA does for its members. I know that they have a lobbyist in Sac (who everyone seems to like, as opposed to the last guy), which is commendable. What I don't see is the CRPA promoting shooting, self defense, safety, and the 2A principles of keep & bear. I was wary of joining because I didn't know what they actually do (I see the NRA/CGF/SAF work products). But I did join because I knew that this fight (with the anti's) is a numbers game in politics.

Now what can we do to fix this problem... I don't think it should be necessary to start a whole new gun rights org, or petition the NRA to stop being affiliated with the CRPA. But I think that we (calgunners, 2A folks, non-competitive shooters) should have a sit down with the CRPA BoD (especially the Exec Committee) and explain our concerns about how they do not seem to be taking their whole mission statement seriously, and figure out a mutually agreeable way forward to make sure that the needs and desires of the CRPA members are being met.

-Dana

Ryan_D
03-09-2012, 4:17 PM
So...my local representative was granted the CRPA 'Legislator of the Year' award. His name is Bill Berryhill...Here are some comments that were made on his FB post RE: CRPA vs. CGF/SAF and political/legal maneuvering.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1341057034

CRACKERJACK
03-09-2012, 4:54 PM
Start a new org sooner then later.

I joined CRPA on the grounds of reform two years ago. I have seen no change. The president has made it clear that he does not want anything changed. He also has the organization set up so that it is almost impossible to challenge him, and the members can't do squat about it (I believe this is the focus of the debacle right now.) Attempting to change the CRPA is just another huge fight in my eyes. I believe we should avoid this, as it will take time (read years upon years) and resources better spent on the good fight. I see the give it a year posts I've given it two. And right now, I feel like the situation is even worse off.

And lets be real here, for everyone saying were splitting up gun owners, for every one person you hear say something good about CRPA, you hear three or four people say something bad. The discussion over CRPA has been splitting people up for years now, and if we focus on trying to save "Tony's organization" we will only add to the divide. Just look were we are at right now with the attempted reforms. People are getting upset, taking this to a personal level and making attacks. Yes, splitting has it's down falls, but you need to know when to leave a sinking ship.

Tony has made it clear that we are an enemy in his eyes,
"The contentious and fractious nature of some of these issues has caused certain third parties, web forums and blog sites within the Second Amendment community in California to take aim at the CRPA. The Association was put on notice by some of these entities that if it does not make the changes they desire there would be considerable backlash, an anti-CRPA message generated, and even possible legal action to force the Association to make their changes. Unfortunately, many of these "reformers" are also CRPA members. Rest assured that we will fight any attempt to weaken or compromise our Association in order to appease a small but very vocal minority within the California Second Amendment community." (And it was Tony who made the bold part.)(I also just found out bolding is not a word. I find this most unfortunate, as it really curtails the use of the word.)
And let me quote again, "Unfortunately, many of these "reformers" are also CRPA members."

And from what I've heard from people, CRPA really only has four main reasons for membership.
1)Competitive shooters
2)People who want to buy from CMP
3)People who hope for reform
4)People who got stuck with life memberships years ago

We need an actual go to group for California 2A purposes.

CGF has the people to make this happen. It's obvious that it would have a strong foundation of active people from the very beginning. There would be an ample supply of volunteers to set up booths at local gun shows or however and spread the word. I believe this would get us the organization that we all dream of much faster and with less scars than this current tactic. I saw this conversation happen two years ago (not actually to this point, there was much more hope) and sounds like it also happened in 2008. I say it's time we stop playing the abusive relationship card and acknowledge the truth.

CRACKERJACK
03-09-2012, 4:55 PM
Double post.

Southwest Chuck
03-09-2012, 5:00 PM
So...my local representative was granted the CRPA 'Legislator of the Year' award. His name is Bill Berryhill...Here are some comments that were made on his FB post RE: CRPA vs. CGF/SAF and political/legal maneuvering.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1341057034

I might be blind, but I don't see any comments on the link you provided

CRACKERJACK
03-09-2012, 5:02 PM
I might be blind, but I don't see any comments on the link you provided

I think you have to be his friend to see it. I don't even have a facebook right now so it only lets me see a picture.

Ryan_D
03-09-2012, 5:08 PM
Idk why they're not showing up...possibly because there's no "friends" connection? Anyway, there's a summary of the conversation:

Ryan J. Daugherty (me): The CGF (Cal-Guns Foundation) and the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) are MUCH more active in the political-legal battles.

Charles E. Nichols: If you mean that they are much more active in keeping bans on Open Carry in effect then yes, yes they are.

Ryan J. Daugherty: Riiiiiiiiiiight. ^^ 2 foundations fighting to force states to comply with their own laws and taking ACTUAL legal action to do so want to keep open-carry banned. That remark is pure genius *sarcasm*

Charles E. Nichols Here's a link to the SAF/Calguns lawsuit in California. Click on any of the documents filed by the SAF/Calguns attorney (Alan Gura). He spent so much time arguing that California can ban Open Carry if it wants to, he forgot to state just what the nature of his challenge to California's CCW statute was. The judge inferred a facial challenge. Gura lost.

http://ia700408.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html

That was all I said, because A.) I didn't want to get into a drawn-out debate about which group supports what better on someone else's page, and B.) I got the feeling this guy was a pretty strong supporter of the CRPA, which means I wouldn't have changed his mind anyway.

Coded-Dude
03-09-2012, 5:13 PM
I support SAF/CGF. Not interested in the CRPA.

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 5:30 PM
I don't see the problem in requesting evidence to support to both others and to myself the why of being here. It was not my intention to question the ability/contribution. Propaganda talks, facts walk.

Here's some more evidence: Calguns Foundation Sues Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca (http://eepurl.com/jV3NL)

-Brandon

berto
03-09-2012, 5:32 PM
Idk why they're not showing up...possibly because there's no "friends" connection? Anyway, there's a summary of the conversation:

Ryan J. Daugherty (me): The CGF (Cal-Guns Foundation) and the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) are MUCH more active in the political-legal battles.

Charles E. Nichols: If you mean that they are much more active in keeping bans on Open Carry in effect then yes, yes they are.

Ryan J. Daugherty: Riiiiiiiiiiight. ^^ 2 foundations fighting to force states to comply with their own laws and taking ACTUAL legal action to do so want to keep open-carry banned. That remark is pure genius *sarcasm*

Charles E. Nichols Here's a link to the SAF/Calguns lawsuit in California. Click on any of the documents filed by the SAF/Calguns attorney (Alan Gura). He spent so much time arguing that California can ban Open Carry if it wants to, he forgot to state just what the nature of his challenge to California's CCW statute was. The judge inferred a facial challenge. Gura lost.

http://ia700408.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html

That was all I said, because A.) I didn't want to get into a drawn-out debate about which group supports what better on someone else's page, and B.) I got the feeling this guy was a pretty strong supporter of the CRPA, which means I wouldn't have changed his mind anyway.

There are a few threads here re: Mr. Nichols. You might find them interesting.

Ryan_D
03-09-2012, 6:33 PM
I don't know anything about Mr. Nichols...but his tone seemed like he might be an insider at CRPA or something like that.

eaglemike
03-09-2012, 6:40 PM
I don't know anything about Mr. Nichols...but his tone seemed like he might be an insider at CRPA or something like that.
He might be. I don't know if that's a good thing or not, based on the things I've read the last few years.

I find it extremely ironic that Nichols would dare to take a shot at Mr Gura. IMHO Mr Gura deserves as much or more respect as anyone else I can think of for his efforts regarding the 2A. When Nichols successfully argues a case in front of the SCOTUS regarding the 2A I'll print this post on a piece of paper and eat it.

I hope the CRPA can clean up it's act quickly and transparently. If not, time for 2.0. :)

resident-shooter
03-09-2012, 6:41 PM
I am frankly tired of NRA and other "second amendment" groups that simply organize shoots, stand with loudspeakers and gather their own conventions where they vent their patriotism and tough language while we have no freedom in CA.

I want a unified gun owners' body which would be as tough and intolerant of unfair laws as the second amendment foundation. Those guys are the benchmark in my book because they FIGHT. They fight relentlessly for our rights, which is what we need dammit!!!

jdberger
03-09-2012, 6:52 PM
I don't know anything about Mr. Nichols...but his tone seemed like he might be an insider at CRPA or something like that.

Mr. Nichols isn't an insider anywhere. He's a leper.

Don't wrestle with the pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it.

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 7:48 PM
Mr. Nichols isn't an insider anywhere. He's a leper.



Nichols has his followers, I heard that they are all going to go to court with him, once they learn to tie their shoes....

hoffmang
03-09-2012, 8:11 PM
Nichols has his followers, I heard that they are all going to go to court with him, once they learn to tie their shoes....

Mr. Nichols likes taking pot shots at Mr. Gura. What he isn't saying is that Alan Gura won the first case for the right to bear arms in public in Maryland using exactly the same arguments he used in the California cases that Mr. Nichols so despises.

And now we get to watch Mr. Nichols lose his case in a most ugly and amusing manner.

-Gene

Ryan_D
03-09-2012, 8:14 PM
That is precisely what I thought when I read that. I thought to myself, "He points out a case that Gura didn't win, probably before a biased judge, but says nothing about Maryland? And how many suits has the CRPA filed?"

tankerman
03-09-2012, 8:21 PM
I am frankly tired of NRA and other "second amendment" groups that simply organize shoots, stand with loudspeakers and gather their own conventions where they vent their patriotism and tough language while we have no freedom in CA.


You are uninformed.

DangerousGoods
03-09-2012, 8:28 PM
In Gene (CGF) I trust.

Zebra
03-09-2012, 8:36 PM
Cool, but that would be CGF, no?

There is a difference!
In Gene (CGN) I trust.

DangerousGoods
03-09-2012, 8:39 PM
Cool, but that would be CGF, no?

There is a difference!

Oops wrong acronym. I have edited it.

Tarn_Helm
03-09-2012, 8:55 PM
This is about where I am. I want gun rights, not "shooting sports"

I want gun CIVIL rights too!!!

I am not some hunter of quail, pheasant, deer or whatever other wimpy little creature the fat old "good old boys" hunt in this lame state.

I WANT LTC/CCW.

Sooner rather than later.

"Shooting sports" is an amusing, quaint little concept.

But why would I want that over LTC/CCW?

Unless and until CRPA changes the bylaws and restores the membership of Gene Hoffman and Brett Thomas, CRPA is no longer receiving a cent from me.

Excuse me.

Time to donate to CG.

Be right back with an edit.
:rant:

EDIT:
Just donated $250.00 to CGF.

We have to keep fighting.

I'll keep working and supporting.

We really have to fight--right now--and get LTC in this state.

We here are not getting any help with the fight for LTC from CRPA in my opinion, so Calguns gets it all from now on!
svTuSRiFPoc

Give what you can, folks.

Your freedom is the worthiest cause I know of.

proclone1
03-09-2012, 11:25 PM
Here's some more evidence: Calguns Foundation Sues Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca (http://eepurl.com/jV3NL)

-Brandon

I got the email and the first thing I did was place a phonecall to the "skeptic" I was alluding to in my original reply!!! He haw'd & hummed :facepalm:

Tarn_Helm
03-09-2012, 11:37 PM
Why don't you Calgunners tell us what to do next?

With all the current turmoil between the CRPA and Calguns.net, it is important that the community speaks up and tells us what you want.

So lets hold a simply poll.
Should we:

A) campaign for bylaw reform
B) Create a full service gun owner 2.0 organization

We CalGunners need to take over CRPA.

Time for this state to start building a real, "indigenous," CA-specific Second Amendment Juggernaut!
:rant:

freonr22
03-09-2012, 11:45 PM
In my humble opinion, at this point, the crpa is irrelevant. What function do they serve for the California rights of freedom?

Ie having no probative value upon any issue in the case

SanPedroShooter
03-10-2012, 7:32 AM
THANK YOU!! This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks also to Eaglemike for your input; I have honestly not stumbled on those discussions but JDBerger's answers were great. Brandon, thanks also for the clarification, it is coming back to me now.



I just knew something like this would happen. Look, all I was looking for was visual evidence to show others. You want a receipt, $100 in the grand scheme of things is so piddly (but not to me), it's not even worth bragging about if it wasn't true. Nonetheless here you are: http://i42.tinypic.com/34pgqwx.jpg

I don't see the problem in requesting evidence to support to both others and to myself the why of being here. It was not my intention to question the ability/contribution. Propaganda talks, facts walk.

I apologize. I didnt really want to see a reciept, I was trying to make a point.

I am glad you got the answers you wanted. Please consider joining the NRA and CRPA, it makes a big difference. And it doesnt even cost as much as your donation.

proclone1
03-10-2012, 10:17 AM
Please consider joining the NRA and CRPA, it makes a big difference. And it doesnt even cost as much as your donation.

No Apology needed; I did feel quite sheepish after I got the email hours later about LA County being sued. Per your advice, I just joined the NRA! I am considering the CRPA membership.

SanPedroShooter
03-10-2012, 10:29 AM
No Apology needed; I did feel quite sheepish after I got the email hours later about LA County being sued. Per your advice, I just joined the NRA! I am considering the CRPA membership.

Congratulations. I dont worship the NRA, but I am damn glad to be a member and sometimes, dare I say it, proud. Plus American Rifleman is well worth the 25 bucks a year or whatever it is.

Welcome to the club.

PS.
If you call the NRA, you can get off their spam list if it bothers you excessively. I like getting mail with my name on it, its the highpoint of my day;)

BigDogatPlay
03-10-2012, 10:59 AM
I'm in the minority, but I think it makes far more sense to continue to try and bring CRPA's governance into the current century, and grow it's membership. than it does to try and spin up a wholly separate group. CRPA has nearly 140 years of existence on it's side.

The "old boy shooting club" mentality that is still apparent within CRPA leadership is going to have to soften eventually, or the organization will eventually fall into irrelevance. But I do note, with some sadness, that the Association is choosing to not check it's fire with the tone and timbre of open message to membership posted on their landing page.

The firearms communities; sporting, collecting, competitive and personal defense, are diverse. The Second Amendment creates a very large tent for us all to gather under, and I think it would be far better for CRPA to not take the institutional position that there is only room in the tent for the communities they choose to represent.

CRACKERJACK
03-10-2012, 11:12 AM
I am glad you got the answers you wanted. Please consider joining the NRA and CRPA, it makes a big difference. And it doesnt even cost as much as your donation.

No love for the SAF? Only 15$ and they've been leading the charge.

Tarn_Helm
03-10-2012, 2:09 PM
No love for the SAF? Only 15$ and they've been leading the charge.

Just re-upped to Lifetime membership with The Second Amendment Foundation.
Rw7w2b_FTC8
:44:
:punk:
:57: :25:

stitchnicklas
03-10-2012, 8:16 PM
disgusting....my night is ruined.


so glad i back calguns and not crpa.


funny how they call calguns a extremist fringe when we have 100,000 members and crpa has 30,000........

stitchnicklas
03-10-2012, 8:17 PM
gee.....

who did the flow charts for pistol,ar/ak's,shotguns....CALGUNS

kermit315
03-10-2012, 8:19 PM
From what I can tell, the only thing that people of California get out of CRPA is their lobbyist, and he costs money. Beyond that, I dont see what cant or isnt done by CGF and a couple of other organizations already. I say put a bullet in CRPA's head, find a new way to pay the lobbyist, and move forward.

They seem to be more of an anchor than an asset at this point. Just one guys opinion, that may or may not be stationed in California again.

CRACKERJACK
03-10-2012, 8:21 PM
Just re-upped to Lifetime membership with The Second Amendment Foundation.[/CENTER]
NICE! Making me look bad, I'm still just an annual member. I need to recover from my recent purchases. Then I promised myself to save up the money to be a San Diego sponsor through CGF. Then I'll join the life members. All on a college budget. :chris:


funny how they call calguns a extremist fringe when we have 100,000 members and crpa has 30,000........

I like how he called us a minority. And how it's "unfortunate" we are a part of the CRPA. I don't think he realizes how many paying members he just wished away.

HowardW56
03-10-2012, 8:43 PM
I like how he called us a minority. And how it's "unfortunate" we are a part of the CRPA. I don't think he realizes how many paying members he just wished away.


He doesn't realize how many current members will now vote for anyone other than the current executive committee...

Ryan_D
03-10-2012, 8:50 PM
Well, unless I've mis-judged things, I'm betting that they will do all they can to amend the by-laws in their favor.

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 9:38 PM
He doesn't realize how many current members will now vote for anyone other than the current executive committee...

He does realize that. In fact, he's laughing at the membership because he realizes that he's not subject to their vote. Tony Montanarella is a handpicked and appointed member of the old guard, relying on the good-ol'-boy bylaws for he and his cronies to stay in power.

In fact, it's possible the only reason every single one of the CRPA officers are on the board at all this term is because they appointed themselves...

See:

CRPA Activity Committees in 2011: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjuDXQ308KnodExzRllnUGlLSWpFdkgxUmJkRUk3N kE#gid=0

CRPA Activity Committee election results for 2011-2012: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjuDXQ308KnodGtmcnNlbmRtV0V3OXl5VmM4N2hmN Hc#gid=0

CRPA directory & election/appointment status: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzuDXQ308KnoZGM2NDBkNmQtOTM0Yi00Yjk5LWI3M DMtMDc3MjI2ZDNhYzkw

-Brandon

stitchnicklas
03-10-2012, 9:49 PM
In fact, it's possible the only reason every single one of the CRPA officers are on the board at all this term is because they appointed themselves...



-Brandon

cough****cough*****



not every member is a douche,some are great guys being thrown in with a the lot of wolves....cough****cough****

mr.wiese for one...cough****cough****is a awesome guy

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 9:57 PM
Re-read what I said.

Officers != directors. Bill is a director.

-Brandon


cough****cough*****

not every member is a douche,some are great guys being thrown in with a the lot of wolves....cough****cough****

mr.wiese for one...cough****cough****is a awesome guy

taperxz
03-10-2012, 10:13 PM
I want a well run organization that will comprehensively convince the government to leave me and firearms alone. I did nothing to deserve having the government RESTRICT my civil right to keep and bear arms.

stitchnicklas
03-10-2012, 10:25 PM
Re-read what I said.

Officers != directors. Bill is a director.

-Brandon

oh come on now,you know what i meant,peon's like me do not know better from officer and director an such.....


just trying to keep good names clean is all

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 10:26 PM
oh come on now,you know what i meant,peon's like me do not know better from officer and director an such.....

just trying to keep good names clean is all

It's important in this conversation that the appropriate distinctions are made.

-Brandon

Zebra
03-10-2012, 10:35 PM
Let them rot.

The 'good-ol'-boys' made their position clear; it's a waste of time and effort to fight windmills.

Let them rot and move on.

Bolillo
03-10-2012, 11:38 PM
In fact, it's possible the only reason every single one of the CRPA officers are on the board at all this term is because they appointed themselves...


CRPA directory & election/appointment status: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzuDXQ308KnoZGM2NDBkNmQtOTM0Yi00Yjk5LWI3M DMtMDc3MjI2ZDNhYzkw

-Brandon

I'm also shocked -- shocked that three of four of the people noted as "staff" just seem to magically share the same last name.

:facepalm:

I'm sure that CRPA scoured the whole state for the absolutely most qualified people to hold those positions, and it just so happened that they all ended up having the same last name. That's it. That's the ticket.