PDA

View Full Version : CALNRA: NRA Opposes Mandatory Pet Spay/Nueter


mikehaas
05-01-2007, 7:49 PM
NRA Members' Councils of California
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/skin/mclogoclr2.gif (http://calnra.com)
CALNRA: NRA Opposes Mandatory Pet Spay/Nueter
8:30 PM, 05/01/2007

Issue: MANDATORY PET SPAY/NUETER (Levine)

Description: This bill would prohibit any person from owning or possessing any cat or dog over the age of 4 months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as defined.

The bill would establish an intact permit fee in an amount to be determined by a local jurisdiction, and would require the revenue from these fees to be used for the administration of the local jurisdiction's permit program.

The bill would become operative on April 1, 2008.

Latest Info: 05/01/2007 - NRA opposes AB 1634 as amended by the Business and Professions Committee on April 24th. AB 1634 will next appear before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, date unknown at this time. Please contact the Assembly Appropriations Committee members (http://calnra.com/legs/asmapprops.shtml) and urge a NO vote on AB 1634.

Bill author Assemblymember Levine is also the author of AB 334, MANDATORY LOSS/THEFT REPORTING (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab334).

In its current form, AB 1634 proposes to seriously restrict the property rights of responsible hunting dog breeders and owners while imposing untold and unjust punitive costs upon their activities. If adopted, the provisions of AB 1634 would have a profound negative economic impact on both the state and local economies in California.

AB1634 is poorly conceived and, as written, this legislation presents a "ONE-SIZE FITS ALL" early-age sterilization approach with little thought regarding the health and behavior considerations of early spay/neuter. More information is available at the American Kennel Club (AKC) (http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm) and ab1634.com (http://ab1634.com/).

Action needed: Send a ONE-CLICK Email to the ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab1634

Mike

!@#$
05-01-2007, 7:56 PM
OT


what is the NRA doing to make the doj inform the police about legal off list rifles?

bwiese
05-01-2007, 8:00 PM
OT
what is the NRA doing to make the doj inform the police about legal off list rifles?

Way way way more than you could imagine. At great cost.

mikehaas
05-01-2007, 8:29 PM
OT


what is the NRA doing to make the doj inform the police about legal off list rifles?
Relax. NRA can focus on more than one thing at a time. Why not try it?

Mike

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 8:31 PM
NRA and spaying dogs????? Don't they have better things to disagree with?

spgk380
05-01-2007, 8:35 PM
I will support this bill of a permit required for a non-castrated or spayed pet if they also pass a bill requiring a permit for people in Sacramento to have children that aren't castrated or spayed. This would go a long way toward solving California's government problems and work wonders for the human race. It would also solve teen pregnancy, overpopulation, improve teenager's grades, urban sprawl, decrease pollution, deforestation, eliminate STDs, and a host of other issues the Dems would be willing to sign on for.

I suggest it read like this:
A bilaterally symmetric homosapien capable of producing offspring in rapid succession with each act of intercourse, a center-firing mouth, and anyone of the following characteristics:
(1) penis which protrudes conspicuously from the body
(2) poontang, which means an organ with a hole that allows the penis to penetrate into or through the organ while doing the sideways tango.
(3) corneas which perceptively redirect light from the homosapien's field of vision.
(4) flare launcher

Shall require a permit to possesses said prohibited features. MEMO: Homosapiens which already possess said prohibited features without a permit may be brought into compliance with the law by removing the offending features. Approved methods include the "1-minute fix" :D If you are arrested for possession of such a child without a permit, your child will be confiscated, destroyed and you will be subject to a $500 fine. Homosapiens specifically banned and listed by first AND last name may not be brought into compliance by removing said features. For an up-to-date list, please visit http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/directory.asp?include=1&sort=2&type=1.

I apologize in advance if the moderators want to delete this post, but I couldn't resist.

mikehaas
05-01-2007, 8:46 PM
NRA and spaying dogs????? Don't they have better things to disagree with?
Than protecting hunters rights? Don't think so. You see, some depend on dogs to enjoy their sport, just as you might need a target scope or reloading outfit.

Here's a thought - as fellow gun-owners, how about we join together and support them too? NRA is identifying the common enemy, are we united enough to fight them?

BTW, here, we have the opportunity to join ranks with many types of dog people and show them, yes, their rights can come under threat just like ours. We just might end up with a stronger NRA when it's all done, eh?

Mike

SemiAutoSam
05-01-2007, 8:58 PM
I agree Mike for a lot of reasons this Bill is just another way to restrict the public in lawful activity.

More Government control = Bad.

cartman
05-01-2007, 9:05 PM
As of right now there is a local law like that in Santa Rosa and many other towns singleing out pit bull/ stapashire breeds. Just another example about using fear and misinformation to tell us what to do and how to do it. It might be something that concerns or effects you directly it should still bother you.

Anthonysmanifesto
05-01-2007, 11:01 PM
but what about dog tethering PETA bills?

mikehaas
05-02-2007, 5:48 AM
Message received over the NRA Members' Council internal state-wide network:
-----
To all;

My wife and I are volunteer puppy raisers for Guide Dogs of America and this bill has severe implications not only for sportsmen, but also because it makes no provision to protect existing breeding stock of charitable organizations such as Guide Dogs of America.

Guide Dogs of America and other organizations like them provide Service Dogs to the blind and other disabled people. AB 1634 would destroy these outstanding, carefully managed breeding programs with onerous Annual Fees, and would do a terrible dis-service to the community at large by denying blind and other disabled people some of the freedoms that we take for granted.

GDA is completely dependent on donations, and the tens of thousands of dollars for Intact Fees would kill the breeding program, AND every puppy in training can't be evaluated as breeding stock until 6 mos, so EVERY dog would be subject to the fee, eve though 90% will be spayed/neutered anyway.

Whether you own a dog or not, if this bill can be defeated, it will be a win/win for all responsible dog owners, for the charities that work so hard to breed outstanding animals, and for the thousands of disabled people who are waitng for a dog to change their life.

Please take the time to visit calnra.com and oppose this bill.

Joe
-----
Mike

luvtolean
05-02-2007, 5:53 AM
What a stupid f'ing bill. Sheeze. :rolleyes:

WTF, how long is it going to be before everything in Cali is illegal, except for what we are permitted by law?

Satex
05-02-2007, 6:16 AM
The NRA should stay the hell away from this bill. It has NOTHING to do with its charter.

luvtolean
05-02-2007, 6:31 AM
What exactly is the NRA's charter?

I went on the site and don't see it. The closest I found was this: http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx

I do see much about their emphasis on hunter rights and safety, which this bill does directly collide with...

stator
05-02-2007, 7:03 AM
Relax. NRA can focus on more than one thing at a time. Why not try it?

Mike

I think it is a legitimate question, but maybe off topic for your thread. Nonetheless, I do not think his question warrants your or BW's reply. I know as a long-time life member of the NRA and donor, I've paid for that answer. So it is discouraging to hear the replies here.

BTW, I support NRA's stance on this bill. It is tragic when anti-gunners target our labs who do nothing wrong but provide continuous and unending love.

ETD1010
05-02-2007, 7:51 AM
I'm probably the only one here that agrees with that bill. I've volunteered at a few animal rescue leagues and shelters and I've seen first hand what unnecessary breeding does. I love dogs. I'd live and breathe them if I could, and I hate seeing the mass numbers of puppies that have had to be put down. Although I don't particular agree with how this bill is written (needing a permit, it being ILLEGAL to have an dog that can be bred) I agree with it's purpose. The problem lies in the legislation. . .

luvtolean
05-02-2007, 7:58 AM
I've met far too many people who want to tell me how to live my life, or what is best for my dog, or what gun I should have, or what color I should paint my house, and I see how harmful it is for some people to breed.

Where is the bill solving that problem?

xenophobe
05-02-2007, 8:12 AM
what is the NRA doing to make the doj inform the police about legal off list rifles?

There are a number of areas where you can have a valid criticism of the NRA, but the off list situation is definitely not one of them. The NRA and TMLLP have had absolutely stellar performance on the off-list situation in California. They're the only ones who really cared about it and almost all of the work was done behind the scenes.

If you have any doubts, you should look into the NRA commitment against CA DOJ's attempt at changing regulatory code relating to the off-list situation.

Californio
05-02-2007, 8:40 AM
Another Nanny State Bill. My City charges 15.00 yearly for altered and 30.00 for unaltered dog licenses. I think it works just fine that way.

Spiggy
05-02-2007, 9:01 AM
I suggest it read like this:
A bilaterally symmetric homosapien capable of producing offspring in rapid succession with each act of intercourse, a center-firing mouth, and anyone of the following characteristics:
(1) penis which protrudes conspicuously from the body
(2) poontang, which means an organ with a hole that allows the penis to penetrate into or through the organ while doing the sideways tango.
(3) corneas which perceptively redirect light from the homosapien's field of vision.
(4) flare launcher

:mad: Aww man! my coffee!!:D

Anthonysmanifesto
05-02-2007, 9:09 AM
This bill will allow "fees" to be applied, for the "privelage " of leaving your animal whole.

if you are a breeder with say a couple of dozen juvenile animals that all require a $150 permit to leave them whole then that gets passed on to the consumer or the breeder eats it.

if this doggie eugenics plan were to move forward then the gene pool for those dogs that help us hunt, track, retrive, find bombs, offer companionship to the infirmed or elderley, sense seisures, serve the blind, guard, attack, and compete will be limited in our state. It is on its face saying that only exisitng recognized breeds should reproduce and only if the government gets some money.

this measure takes common sense (spay and neurter non breeding animals to prevent unwanted births) and throws it out the window and turned it into a bizarre revenue enhancing stream, that the NRA is correct to opposed given that the outdoorsman who traditionally make up its membership use dogs to point, tree, retrieve, attack and defend on an expedition.

This measure is just as bad as past anti-hunting measure, the oringal dog tethering bill, but its effects may not hurt our community for a generation or two (doggy generations that is).

my county is passing an ordinance very similar.

My last dog was whole, lived to be 15 and never impregnated anything, and I doubt had I given the government $150 , it would not have changed that fact.

A better plan would be to allow tax credits or rebates for spaying or neurtering your animal, raher that attacking the poor for having a dog, incentivise it.

echoplex
05-02-2007, 9:17 AM
I'm sorry but this is one of the few states that need an irresponsible breeder law. If you could see how many animals get killed daily in LA county shelters you'd be sick. If you haven't seen the packs of feral pit bulls and the yards full of yapping chihuahuas then consider your neighborhood blessed.

Basically there's two sides
1) Stop the thousands of daily irresponsible breeders from making $100/dog "out of nothing" by inhumane, disgusting, and ultimately fatal (if the puppies aren't sold, the dogs get released into the streets or killed) breeding habits.

2) Allow dozens, maybe hundreds of responsible, good, breeders to go on paying the same fees, instead of raising them.

Seriously, go experience the irresponsible breeders for yourself, either at a shelter (ask to see the freezer) or at a homemade puppy mill. Even the most freedom loving and nanny state hating of us would be outraged.

luvtolean
05-02-2007, 9:20 AM
You mean, like people that are outraged at the gun violence in America?

My GF probably killed thousands ofr dogs in the many years she worked at shelters.

She is not in favor of this law.

Do you think breeders of pit bulls are going to care?

What about people who show their dogs? Do they have to carry around their registration papers when walking their doggie to prove they're breeders or that those lumps in the sac are nuticles?

Preposterous.

What if I WANT my dog to be dominant, and have his intact personality?

Stupid, feel good, fix nothing, bull**** legislation.

echoplex
05-02-2007, 9:33 AM
I'm pretty sure all the (already illegal) gun violence in the entire history of this country would be outnumbered by the amount of dogs put down in Southern California in a month alone.

The problem is there is no clear law and certainly no major penalties against home puppy mills. So when police find pit bull and dogfight breeders in this state, they can't do much.

Do I think this particular bill will solve anything? No.

But it would be nice to have an effective law to help the average non-breeder's animals get spayed/neutered just to save on the huge expense of shelters on taxpayers, and a huge penalty when irresponsible breeders are discovered.
It definitely should be done in certain counties, since this isn't really a statewide problem.

luvtolean
05-02-2007, 9:46 AM
Dogs are not people. I know that's hard for many to understand. But they are not. A dog's life does not compare to a human's.

It would save taxpayers money to not have smokers, not have McDonald's, not have booze not have THE FREEDOM TO DO WHAT YOU WANT without some idiot telling me whether my dog is allowed to keep the testicles that God gave him or not.

But that doesn't mean it should be that way.

A few people are idiots. Why punish the rest of us? Why punish the dog?

There is already a leash law. Most dog bites and attacks come from dogs running around off leash, especially the nice lab/cocker/german shepherd that's "never done that before".

Why not just enforce this law? (And I know for a fact it is not enforced against the people who need it the most, your average Mom or Dad walking the family pet with the kids and no leash) This would solve the problem.

Backyard breeders don't bother me either, as long as they aren't running afoul of local ordinances, and they are not violating cruelty to animals laws. We don't need yet another law, that now goes after average pet owners. The laws to do it already exist.

This measure is just as bad as past anti-hunting measure, the oringal dog tethering bill, but its effects may not hurt our community for a generation or two (doggy generations that is).

It's funny, we had our dog at the vet recently for an "old man" check up. He told us it was a shame he'd been neutered (by the shelter my GF got him from FYI) as he had the best joints of any bullmastiff he'd ever examined, and it was too bad he wasn't reproducing...and it really bothers me that we can't breed him too. He's a "real" bullmastiff, I'd love to have a pup from, not the ridiculous 150 pound monstrosities bred for the bigger is better American consumer that doesn't take their dog out to understand why that's a bad thing, you see at most breeders...

Omega13device
05-02-2007, 10:01 AM
Please move this topic to the Hunting forum. Spay/neuter laws may be of interest to some gun owners but it's not a 2nd Amendment issue.

mikehaas
05-02-2007, 3:07 PM
One look at some of the groups opposing this piece of trash explains why NRA is joining them...

North American Versatile Hunting Dog Association
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California
San Diego Hunting Retriever Club, Inc.
Sportsmen's and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance
Sportsmen's Council of Central California
The California Sportsman's Lobby, Inc.
United Sportsmen's Alliance

And you know who is really behind this attack on sportpersons. don't you? It's a long-time enemy - one of the groups trying to use the United Nations to force their will on everyone and is one of NRA's big opponents in those halls... it's the ultra-extreme People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) again. Y'know, the group that also pays for the legal defense of terrorists that burn businesses and murders humans?

So who does PETA brings to the table? Here's some...

All Creatures Great & Small Animal Rescue
Animals, People and Environment
Coalition for Pets & Public Safety
In Defense of Animals
Linda Blair WorldHeart Foundation

Looks to me like NRA has informed us about a major attack on our fellow NRA members. Great job! Now, if only WE would do something about those who promote division among gun-owners instead of simply sending a ONE-CLICK and helping out. Gun-owners NOT joining forces is one of the reasons RKBA has suffered in this state. Running to NRA when YOUR pet issue is threatened but poo-pooing other attacks on other gun-owners is how we got here, folks. Not such a great job.

And since we ALL own guns - shooters AND hunters, not to mention those who simply want to defend themselves - how can anyone propose this is not about the Second Amendment and every one of us? That's just not true.

Mike

jnojr
05-02-2007, 3:35 PM
The NRA is not a "hunting rights" organization. It should take no position on this bill. I'm not too thrilled at the thought of the NRA spending money on this, and then running to me screaming that the sky is falling unless I donate more.

Anyways, I support this bill... it has nothing to do with "hunting rights", and won't stop hunters from getting dogs. But it'll sure help to reduce the crushing burden of unwanted animals at the shelters. Most of them don't wind up with a happy end.

grammaton76
05-02-2007, 4:00 PM
I think it is a legitimate question, but maybe off topic for your thread. Nonetheless, I do not think his question warrants your or BW's reply. I know as a long-time life member of the NRA and donor, I've paid for that answer. So it is discouraging to hear the replies here.

No, you haven't. Mike is a volunteer, not a paid employee.

Omega13device
05-02-2007, 7:24 PM
And since we ALL own guns - shooters AND hunters, not to mention those who simply want to defend themselves - how can anyone propose this is not about the Second Amendment and every one of us? That's just not true.

Your logic isn't even close to holding together.

The NRA should definitely take a position on this issue if it's of interest to a significant chunk of the membership. I have no problem with that at all. Just don't try to convince us it's a 2A issue, we're not stupid.

ts
05-02-2007, 10:07 PM
MY AK HAS A WELDED 10 ROUND MAG! MY UZI HAS A PINNED 10 ROUND MAG! I DON'T GIVE A S*IT ABOUT DOGS OR CATS GENITALS! I WANT REMOVABLE 50 ROUND DRUM MAGS AND 3RD SEAR PINS DAMNIT!:confused:

chickenfried
05-02-2007, 10:17 PM
While I oppose this bill, I don't think the NRA should have a stated position on this bill.

Wasn't there a thread discussing how NRA didn't want to get involved in issues unrelated to gun rights? Tried a quick search but couldn't find it.

mikehaas
05-03-2007, 5:30 AM
The NRA is not a "hunting rights" organization...
Oh really? Perhaps you should inform former NRA President Kayne Robinson (now Manager of General Operations) who devoted his term to protecting the hunting rights of NRA members via a program called "Free Hunters" that NRA is not a "hunting rights" organization - I'm sure it would be a surprise...
http://www.freehunters.org/
http://www.nrapublications.org/FreeHunters/index.asp
http://www.nrahq.org/ (note the link on NRA's homepage?)

This is one of the most incredible statements made on calguns - incredible in how little someone can know about something, yet open their mouth so definitively. I strongly suggest those wishing to learn more about our 137 year old association, don't ask jonjr. Instead, invite him to tag along on the tour and learn too.

I guess most here think the most important issue NRA deals with and was established in 1871 was to protect OLLs! I now wonder how many here even fathom the width and breadth of NRA's coverage of firearms-related issues - from hunting to shooting to training to outreach to politics to supporting the industry to just-about-anything-YOU-can-think-of.

And for your information, jnojr, NRA was protecting and serving hunters long before gun-rights fell under significant attackin this country. In 1977, NRA almost got out of the gun-rights business to focus SOLEY on hunters, planned to move the HQ to the midwest. Of course, that didn't happen, but it was the plan at one point.

The NRA is not a "hunting rights" organization...

Incredible! What you DON'T know/understand about NRA would apparently fill encyclopedias. Some - a few - on this forum are simply NOT grounded in reality. Too much time in the city, or something. Wow.

Mike

mikehaas
05-03-2007, 6:12 AM
MY AK HAS A WELDED 10 ROUND MAG! MY UZI HAS A PINNED 10 ROUND MAG! I DON'T GIVE A S*IT ABOUT DOGS OR CATS GENITALS! I WANT REMOVABLE 50 ROUND DRUM MAGS AND 3RD SEAR PINS DAMNIT!:confused:
Whoa - Wayne, Kayne, Sandy, Chris - drop what you're doing! Tony wants a 50-round magazine! Forget about federal legislation in response to VT or ANYTHING else. Tony probably doesn't hunt, so that isn't important... oh, wait, this other guy wants CCW... oh, and here someone wants the AW ban lifted.

Not sure we can get it all done before the weekend, though, Tony.

Mike

mikehaas
05-03-2007, 6:38 AM
While I oppose this bill, I don't think the NRA should have a stated position on this bill.

Wasn't there a thread discussing how NRA didn't want to get involved in issues unrelated to gun rights? Tried a quick search but couldn't find it.
It's called H-U-N-T-I-N-G. Look it up.

Look, if you want NRA to stay connected with calguns, I suggest you stop trying to tell them what to do or not do. That's not your job and frankly, there isn't enough expertise here to come close to knowing what gun-owners need to do in this state.

Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing a bunch of self-centered, ignorant comments by those who can't see past their noses, preferring to ignore the needs of other gun-owners and consider their own issues the only thing that NRA needs to worry about. Typical. Depressingly typical. You're no different than those narrow-minded hunters who think black guns should be banned. And on both sides of that fence, you're hurting the Second Amendment.

Last year, when calguns was being rolled over by DOJ and no one had a CLUE what to do, you all cheered when NRA's involvment became public. Even Calguns' best and brightest had NO IDEA that NRA was involved and to what extent, with some wondering if NRA even was AWARE of the OLL situation and others convinced they had given up on California. What experts you all were, eh? If it was a competition, you missed the bull by a mile.

So I suggest you HELP with every cause NRA champions. No, you may not understand the whys and hows, but there's nothing new or surprising about that - you aren't on the inside. But some here run their mouths like they are, that's for sure.

On the other hand, I don't have to post NRA info here. Should I stop logging in? I have other things I could be doing. If Calguns is becoming so ego-centric that they aren't willing to help - no it's even worse, they BAD-MOUTH NRA as NRA does their job, what's the point? I have no need for any forum that adopts those kind of attitudes. You simply give our enemies more ammo.

And then you're going to ask NRA for help with OLLs?

Mike

Omega13device
05-03-2007, 7:29 AM
Mike, as I recall you inserted yourself into this role of interfacing between the NRA and calguns. In a member-driven organization, the members are going to be happy one minute and *****ing the next. That's just reality. Did you not understand that?

Personally I appreciate your work and I think you're filling a role that's badly needed. I also happen to agree with you that hunting issues are relevant areas of action for the NRA but the way you're defending your position is all wrong. It's not the content of your argument, it's the style. If member interaction is so upsetting for you that it makes you sarcastic and snide, I would find someone else to handle it. The NRA should not have someone in this role who can't stay civil with its members.

Anthonysmanifesto
05-03-2007, 8:25 AM
The NRA has had to step in to get amendments to last years dog thethering bill, to counter other gun related orgnaizations assertion that it was ok, now the bill allows for outdoors and training activites...

THe NRA has helped kill bills in the past that would have outlawed using tracking collars on hunting dogs.

The NRA has consistently opposed legislation that outlaas the use of dogs when hunting animal xxx.

while this letter of opposition may be news to some, its consistent with NRA's activist history.

The shooting communities internal battles for prominence between sports is not new and no calgunner should engage in that sort of divisive line of thinking.


the sportsmen in California and America are very important to our shooting sports as a whole. in many ways a good sportsman is an ambassodor to our culture , even if they deny it!

Sportsman are the force that keep public lands open to us. having vision broader than the rifle (http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/index.asp) the sportsman carries helps us all. that includes his access, his dogs, and gear. For example tracking devices. there is definelty a place for the NRA on these issues.

and NO place for activists separating themselves from our hunting brethren.

while we all are scared by banning lead ammo, in what is in reality half the state for hunting purposes, impacting the hunters dog doesnt fit in that paradigm?

what about acces to lands? what about conservation (NRA holds millions of acres by ownership or lease). I like to believe my NRA supports a way of life, and heritage. I think they have , in Sacramento at least, deliberatly chosen their battles.

Haas is a soldier and a major asset to calguns, wiothout him, we might just spin around all day in groupthink.

I hope everyone chills out and keesp open good lines of communications for the battels just around the capitol in city halls an dthe state Capitol.

this is not the bill to freak out on. every year or two the nra steps in to defend our sportsmans heritage. They have found a good balance in Sacramento at least and I am happy with it.

take care

ant'

chickenfried
05-03-2007, 11:03 AM
Forgive me for daring to enter your thread and sharing my opinion. My humblest apologies.

6172crew
05-03-2007, 11:42 AM
If its in opposition to a PETA program I will call....same crooks trying out law ammo.:mad: Hopefully they will waste a bunch of funds fighting the NRA and take attention away from my lead bullets.




**** peta!

mikehaas
05-03-2007, 1:04 PM
Look, guys & gals. Here's how it is for me. I tend to be pretty direct, sometimes to a fault. For those who have taken offense, hear me out.

I've been doing this a long time. 2007 is my 11th year as president of my local Members' Council. 11 years since I created a simple email list that turned into the internal communications backbone for the NRA Members' Councils state-wide network (in 1996, most "MCs" had email, but there was virtually no inter-MC communication going on.) I've seen a few things in that decade+.

I stood right beside Charlton Heston in Seattle, 1997, when he was first running for the board, walking the members' meeting floor with him, handing out his flyers and barking "Meet Charlton Heston" at my fellow members while he shook hands and drew the crowd. I've been to every annual meeting since then and have made some good friends in those 10 years. I have come to know NRA folks from the top "deciders" to hundreds of fellow volunteers ('cause that's all I am), by faces, handshakes and first names (when my mind is working), not by forum usernames. Because they are good people - a real family. I'm glad to have known some of that family.

About that state-wide email network - the NRA Members' Councils of California (http://calnra.com/), it took a lot of work by myself and others to create a real family of activists here in California that, at least once a month, WANT to be there, KNOW WHY they are there and HOW to achieve it - by supporting NRA. Not that NRA is perfect, we just realize NRA is the only "RKBA engine that can" and endlessly debating NRA's decisions is nothing but a waste of time and possibly brings a lessening of support. Those who were here last year saw that sometimes NRA does things that a seem a little unexpected, but they don't do so without a plan. And honest, it's usually a pretty good one. As keeper of the state website flame (volunteer), I work closely with NRA's top CA staff almost every day, so I see a bit more of this stuff than most here.

So, one thing,please realize, I might even be more sick of losing and frustrated than many on this forum. But I also know where we've had successes that have reinforced my faith in the association. Now, early in the 2006 legislative cycle, about April, I think, I created my calguns account amidst tons of confusion about the OLL situation while DOJ was jerking you folks around badly. You were doubting everything and, outside of playing DOJ's game, had little real idea what to do, but still felt the entire responsibility for the OLL situation in California. Nobody else was doing anything, right? Well, I introduced myself with a post titled "NRA takes a lot of heat". I was straight with you folks. I asked you to work with NRA and included calguns in my alert distribution. I told you I could not tell you everything, some would have to be taken on faith. Fast-forward - we saw incredible victory in 2006. We saw DOJ TWICE tried to change the definitions of AW terms to get their butts (butt?) out of their (no comment?) hole - and fail. We defeated Microstamping. Ammo Serialization - ALL THE BIGGIES OF THE ANTIS WENT DOWN. We passed pro-gun laws. We saw NRA and Calguns show up in force to show DOJ their hats at the Aug 16 meeting. If/when the next big step happens in the AW debate, IMO it will be a positive one and the cooperation calguns and NRA shared will have had a lot to do with it.

So yes, I tend to get pretty frustrated when my fellow calgunners continue to oppose NRA's requests. C'mon folks - they aren't idiots. In fact, they are highly skilled at what they do. They are asking you to join them in defending OUR rights, those important to maintaining gun ownership and use. In light of what we saw last year from NRA (and don't forget what we DIDN'T see from anyone else), why the static? The association needs our support to move us forward - on MANY fronts.

So I see myself as an experienced soldier. Sorry if I push too hard.

Mike

leelaw
05-03-2007, 1:10 PM
This thread is over. Watch your insulting or some members may find their posting abilities limited, mmkay?