PDA

View Full Version : CRPA vs. NRA comparison: Could a 4Mil+ member mega-org be easier to have a voice in?


wildhawker
08-02-2012, 9:45 AM
It certainly appears that way.

I've attended NRA members meetings before. I've never attended a CRPA member meeting, and neither have you.

It's time that our CRPA patterned itself after our NRA.

-Brandon

http://savecrpa.org/files/images/nra_crpa_contrast.jpg (http://savecrpa.org/files/images/nra_crpa_contrast.jpg)

berto
08-02-2012, 10:09 AM
I smell a conspiracy.

Californio
08-02-2012, 1:26 PM
A half dozen Autocrats that want to control Other Peoples Money, it is a common theme nowadays. Needs to change.

Californio
08-02-2012, 7:35 PM
So Directors from the CRPA are making personal telephone calls to Members that post on the Petition Page?

wjc
08-02-2012, 7:41 PM
This is one of the many reason's I never joined the CRPA.

If they got their **** together I might consider joining.

so far..no joy.

wildhawker
08-02-2012, 8:08 PM
So Directors from the CRPA are making personal telephone calls to Members that post on the Petition Page?

They're probably going to try and counter with, "see, all these people didn't even know what they were signing" or some inflammatory thing.

It doesn't matter. there are plenty of sympathetic CRPA members with standing. The board has been noticed of the problems, I gave them a reasonable solution, and the board can either choose to take its duties seriously or try and hide behind more excuses.

-Brandon

moleculo
08-02-2012, 10:14 PM
You do realize that the vast majority of gun owners (I'm talking about the legal gun owners) in CA have never heard of the CRPA, right?

On a related note, you want members of CRPA to have a voice. Do you advocate the same view for CGF? I am under the impression that CGF is a donate and don't ask questions and don't give input organization. This sounds like a double standard to me?

I'm not trying to be an ***. I have a limited amount of funds to donate to the cause and choose to donate wisely.

taperxz
08-02-2012, 10:34 PM
You do realize that the vast majority of gun owners (I'm talking about the legal gun owners) in CA have never heard of the CRPA, right?

On a related note, you want members of CRPA to have a voice. Do you advocate the same view for CGF? I am under the impression that CGF is a donate and don't ask questions and don't give input organization. This sounds like a double standard to me?

I'm not trying to be an ***. I have a limited amount of funds to donate to the cause and choose to donate wisely.

CRPA and CGF are two differnt kinds of organizations. STRUCTURALLY

There is no PUBLIC membership to CGF. Just like NRA ILA or CRPA foundation
They can't LEGALLY do what you want.

moleculo
08-02-2012, 10:38 PM
CRPA and CGF are two differnt kinds of organizations. STRUCTURALLY

There is no PUBLIC membership to CGF. Just like NRA ILA or CRPA foundation
They can't LEGALLY do what you want.

According to CGF own filings in recent court cases, anyone that contributes to CGF is a member of CGF, which is why CGF states that they have standing in several of these cases.

taperxz
08-02-2012, 10:45 PM
According to CGF own filings in recent court cases, anyone that contributes to CGF is a member of CGF, which is why CGF states that they have standing in several of these cases.

It's still not the same type of membership like NRA or CRPA. There is no voting of officers or say of how the org can operate. That's the problem most have with CRPA. Members are supposed to have a say. Not like that structurally with CGF. You really need to research what different corps are and how they can work legally.

wash
08-02-2012, 10:57 PM
If you don't like what CGF is doing, vote with your wallet.

In my opinion it's the greatest bang for your buck in gun rights and they get most of my gun rights organization dollars.

CRPA gets $0.00

moleculo
08-02-2012, 10:59 PM
It's still not the same type of membership like NRA or CRPA. There is no voting of officers or say of how the org can operate. That's the problem most have with CRPA. Members are supposed to have a say. Not like that structurally with CGF. You really need to research what different corps are and how they can work legally.

I understand the various types of corporate entities and understand what is going on here. My question wasn't about corporate structure.

There is no voting of officers or say of how the org can operate. That's the problem most have with CRPA.

Same as CGF?

Members are supposed to have a say. Not like that structurally with CGF.

Umm??? OK cool, but then why the constant posts about how wrong the CRPA is if CGF is structured the same way??

I'm not bashing either the CRPA or CGF with my questions. I'm trying to understand where a contributing voice is most likely to be heard and at least mildly taken seriously.

taperxz
08-02-2012, 11:02 PM
I said CRPA and CGF are NOT structured the same way.

taperxz
08-02-2012, 11:13 PM
Moleculo, if you don't like what CGF does, don't donate. In fact go ahead and send your money to CRPA so the president can enjoy his shooting competitions, lavish dinners and million dollar staff. Be sure to ask to attend their members meetings also so you can be sure your voice is heard. I'm sure you will be much happier in that room all by yourself.

moleculo
08-02-2012, 11:14 PM
I said CRPA and CGF are NOT structured the same way.

I never said they were. Just asking some questions for the OP, which is a member of both organizations.

moleculo
08-02-2012, 11:18 PM
Moleculo, if you don't like what CGF does, don't donate.

I didn't say that I didn't like what CGF does. The original post asked some poignant questions of CRPA. Since the OP is a board member of CGF, I was asking similar questions.

Personally, I had never heard of CRPA until I started reading CGN. Most CA gunnies haven't, either. In light of recent press, I would wager that a whole lot more gunnies have heard of CGF, which is why I'm asking the questions.

I didn't realize that asking questions about how CGF operates is off limits.

taperxz
08-02-2012, 11:18 PM
I never said they were. Just asking some questions for the OP, which is a member of both organizations.

He is not just a member, he is on the boards. Don't you ever wonder why? It's because the two orgs do different things.

moleculo
08-02-2012, 11:19 PM
He is not just a member, he is on the boards.

Then he is a position of authority to answer the questions. They are fair questions.

taperxz
08-02-2012, 11:20 PM
I didn't say that I didn't like what CGF does. The original post asked some poignant questions of CRPA. Since the OP is a board member of CGF, I was asking similar questions.

Personally, I had never heard of CRPA until I started reading CGN. Most CA gunnies haven't, either. In light of recent press, I would wager that a whole lot more gunnies have heard of CGF, which is why I'm asking the questions.

I didn't realize that asking questions about how CGF operates is off limits.

If you've never heard of CRPA, you are either very young or have not been into firearms till recently.

taperxz
08-02-2012, 11:22 PM
Then he is a position of authority to answer the questions. They are fair questions.

They are not fair questions. It's like going to McDonald's instead of taco bell and asking if McDonald's will make you a taco.

moleculo
08-02-2012, 11:23 PM
If you've never heard of CRPA, you are either very young or have not been into firearms till recently.

Irrelevant to the questions asked.

Amusing, but irrelevant.

moleculo
08-02-2012, 11:26 PM
They are not fair questions. It's like going to McDonald's instead of taco bell and asking if McDonald's will make you a taco.



CRPA vs. NRA comparison: Could a 4Mil+ member mega-org be easier to have a voice in?
It certainly appears that way.

I've attended NRA members meetings before. I've never attended a CRPA member meeting, and neither have you.

It's time that our CRPA patterned itself after our NRA.


McDonald's vs. Taco Bell? Not even a relevant analogy.

I'm not the one that posted that quote above.

Could a 4Mil+ member mega-org be easier to have a voice in than CGF? It certainly appears that way.

I've attended NRA/Duck's Unlimited, (name another gun club/org) meetings before. I've never attended a CGF member meeting, and neither have you.

Sound familiar?

taperxz
08-02-2012, 11:33 PM
Brandon's quote is about NRA and CRPA, what does CGF have to do with anything in that quote? Brandon wants CRPA to be more like the NRA because CRPA may be doing things wrong legally. CGF is NOTHING like either of them structurally.

Yes I have been to a dinner/meeting with CGF before. In San Francisco where Adam Winkler was the guest speaker, it was posted here on CGN.

Librarian
08-02-2012, 11:38 PM
I understand the various types of corporate entities

If this above is true ...

Umm??? OK cool, but then why the constant posts about how wrong the CRPA is if CGF is structured the same way??


why do you say that?

Please describe the corporate structures of CGF and CRPA, and explain how you understand one is the same as the other.

wash
08-02-2012, 11:42 PM
Do you think the CIA or USSOCOM should act with transparency?

I would rather have them disappearing things in the background.

I would love it if LCAV operated with transparency and let us know what they were thinking about doing before they did it. I don't think they will ever go that way. I hope that our side continues to play some of it's cards close to the vest.

CRPA isn't about lawsuits and legal strategy, it's about a crummy newsletter and a few small shooting competitions. There is no reason for CRPA to operate without transparency.

Now CRPAF is a different story because it is a foundation structured like CGF and does similar stuff.

CRPA is supposed to be a state level organization similar to the national NRA and it's NRA affiliated I think.

The correct comparison is CRPA to NRA.

You really should be more concerned with what CRPA isn't doing with your membership dues than what CGF is doing with your voluntary donations.

moleculo
08-02-2012, 11:57 PM
If this above is true ...



why do you say that?

Please describe the corporate structures of CGF and CRPA, and explain how you understand one is the same as the other.

My comment about corporate structure was based entirely on the continued comments made by Brandon that complain about how nobody has input on the actions of CRPA. Those are the only similarities that I was pointing out.

Look, I don't give a Rat's @ss about the corporate structure of the CRPA, CGF, NRA, or the local Jewish Stuttering Foundation. I wasn't the OP complaining about the corporate structure and membership feedback opportunities of a particular group, however. I AM the one pointing out the publicly demonstrated double standard.

Beat me up if you want. Please prove me wrong. But answer the basic questions I asked as part of the public flogging.

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 12:15 AM
You do realize that the vast majority of gun owners (I'm talking about the legal gun owners) in CA have never heard of the CRPA, right?

There are many possible, and probable, reasons for that. CRPA is, however, a relatively large member organization for gun owners here in California.

On a related note, you want members of CRPA to have a voice.

Yes.

Do you advocate the same view for CGF?

Yes. In fact, I and others at CGF readily make ourselves available to discuss matters of importance with the public and our supporters. For example, we engage here and elsewhere regularly.

I am under the impression that CGF is a donate and don't ask questions and don't give input organization.

That's not quite right. CGF is a capitalistic "vote with your wallet" organization that is product-first and asks for support based on our merits and the value we offer.

This sounds like a double standard to me?

It's more that you're misunderstanding certain key foundational differences.

I'm not trying to be an ***. I have a limited amount of funds to donate to the cause and choose to donate wisely.

As you should. People should freely choose how and where to support based on their own values analysis.

According to CGF own filings in recent court cases, anyone that contributes to CGF is a member of CGF, which is why CGF states that they have standing in several of these cases.

Holding membership for the purposes of legal standing is an entirely separate and distinct doctrine from that of corporate law and specifically that of "membership organizations" organized under California nonprofit law.

Could a 4Mil+ member mega-org be easier to have a voice in than CGF? It certainly appears that way.

To the extent that you wish to have voting rights in a membership organization, then yes. CGF has never claimed to be other than what it is - a director-managed corporation with 501(c)3 status as a public benefit nonprofit that seeks support from those who desire to advance their interests through our charitable work as decided by the board and our officers.

It seems to me that you either misunderstand or are obfuscating the fundamental differences between CRPA and CGF.

In any case, the proper contrast is between CRPA and its parent affiliate organization NRA. Both are membership organizations with similar goals and mission. The analogue for CGF would be to compare to, for example, SAF.

-Brandon

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 12:19 AM
My comment about corporate structure was based entirely on the continued comments made by Brandon that complain about how nobody has input on the actions of CRPA. Those are the only similarities that I was pointing out.

And the similarities end at the beginning with the law and corporate framework the two organizations are organized under.

-Brandon

moleculo
08-03-2012, 12:31 AM
That's not quite right. CGF is a capitalistic "vote with your wallet" organization that is product-first and asks for support based on our merits and the value we offer.

Holding membership for the purposes of legal standing is an entirely separate and distinct doctrine from that of corporate law and specifically that of "membership organizations" organized under California nonprofit law.

Some of the recent court rulings have disagreed with CGF associative legal standing in relation with the plaintiff that has filed. Since CGF is actively fighting in court for 2A causes, if the court does not always agree that there is an association between the plaintiff and CGF, and the proposed plaintiffs don't appear have any membership privileges under the CGF corporate structure, how exactly are those that donate to CGF participating members of CGF?

Also, am I to understand by your post above that those who donate the most have the most say on how the funds are used? If that is the case, how do you perform record keeping as to who donates what? Do you have a structure in place and proper auditing that ensures that those who contribute the most have the assurance that their contributions carry the related weight on operating decisions?

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 12:41 AM
Some of the recent court rulings have disagreed with CGF associative legal standing in relation with the plaintiff that has filed. Since CGF is actively fighting in court for 2A causes, if the court does not always agree that there is an association between the plaintiff and CGF, and the proposed plaintiffs don't appear have any membership privileges under the CGF corporate structure, how exactly are those that donate to CGF participating members of CGF?

Consider that we have, legally, the same standing as SAF. Sometimes we might choose to not appeal adverse lower court rulings on standing for strategic or efficiencies (read: timing) reasons, but SAF was a plaintiff in McDonald and Ezell, and CGF is a plaintiff in Richards v. Prieto at CA9...

Also, am I to understand by your post above that those who donate the most have the most say on how the funds are used?

No, you must have misunderstood and frankly I'm not sure how you could derive such a conclusion from my comments.

If that is the case, how do you perform record keeping as to who donates what? Do you have a structure in place and proper auditing that ensures that those who contribute the most have the assurance that their contributions carry the related weight on operating decisions?

Since donor weighting is not how we operate, there's really nothing to address here as the inquiry is moot.

-Brandon

moleculo
08-03-2012, 12:42 AM
CGF is a capitalistic "vote with your wallet" organization

Please enlighten me as to how I should interpret that statement.

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 12:43 AM
Moleculo,

On the merits of the graph in the OP, do you have any specific questions as to the contrast between CRPA and NRA?

-Brandon

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 12:45 AM
Please enlighten me as to how I should interpret that statement.

I mean to say that the free market will decide how much support we receive by operation of peoples' independent evaluation of our e.g. efficacy and ROI.

-Brandon

moleculo
08-03-2012, 12:51 AM
Consider that we have, legally, the same standing as SAF. Sometimes we might choose to not appeal adverse lower court rulings on standing for strategic or efficiencies (read: timing) reasons, but SAF was a plaintiff in McDonald and Ezell, and CGF is a plaintiff in Richards v. Prieto at CA9...

That didn't exactly address my question, but anyone can glean the answer by assembling enough of your posts.

Let me summarize: If you donate to CGF, you are not a member of CGF according to any CGF corporate bylaws. If you donate to CGF, there are no assurances that the court will agree that CGF has standing in a case you might need/wish for their help. Donating to CGF is done purely on a charity basis and should not be construed otherwise. For the record, I'm fine with that but I wanted to make sure I understand clearly.

moleculo
08-03-2012, 12:53 AM
Moleculo,

On the merits of the graph in the OP, do you have any specific questions as to the contrast between CRPA and NRA?

-Brandon

No.

Are you quite done using this forum section as a platform for your dissatisfaction with CRPA? As a CGF member, it might be perceived that you get a lot of leeway in this section on post content that many other CGN members might not be afforded the same opportunity.

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 1:15 AM
No. As a member and a board member, I see these conversations as a means to improvement. If you disagree, feel free to choose to not read my posts. Free market of ideas, remember?

The OP is relevant to 2A and this venue is a means of communicating with CRPA members and prospective members. What rules have I broken, exactly, that would suggest this is not appropriate for discussion here?

-Brandon

NoJoke
08-03-2012, 6:02 AM
As a lowly non-lawyer/non-student lawyer status here - I vote with my wallet.

I see CGF actively fighting for my second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
I see the NRA actively fighting for my second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

I do NOT see CPRA actively fighting for my second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

I fail to understand moleculo's position in asking the questions he's asking in the perspective of fighting for my second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

What is the significance in pointing out corporate structures? Will this affect our 2a fight?

choprzrul
08-03-2012, 6:14 AM
No.

Are you quite done using this forum section as a platform for your dissatisfaction with CRPA? As a CGF member, it might be perceived that you get a lot of leeway in this section on post content that many other CGN members might not be afforded the same opportunity.

I sure hope that he isn't done. Brandon & Co. et al are 2A warriors fighting our battles in the courts. Doing things that none of us can do individually.

The CRPA doesn't play in the courts. CGF doesn't do airgun events. What would make you think that they are the same type of entity. As matter of fact, this thread is about a comparisson of CRPA & the NRA, so straying off on tangents about CGF is completely off topic and is a violation of the rules.

So, it seems to me that you are being afforded more leeway in this forum than others.

.

Smokeybehr
08-03-2012, 7:28 AM
I think the main issue in this thread is that Moleculo doesn't understand the legal difference between the structure of the CalGuns Foundation and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

taperxz
08-03-2012, 7:38 AM
I think the main issue in this thread is that Moleculo doesn't understand the legal difference between the structure of the CalGuns Foundation and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

He obviously doesn't. Moleculos problem is he can't get an LTC in LA! He wants a voice/vote to force CGF to do something down there. HE WILL DENY THIS! But it's true. Why else does he care about a"vote" within CGF? Mole, is not interested in 2A rights for all, he is interested in an LTC for him!! In fact it's all about him. See above how he "tries" to talk Brandon into a corner. LOL, Mole doesn't understand that Brandon doesn't work in a box.:rolleyes:

Mute
08-03-2012, 7:57 AM
I got tired of the CRPA's old boys club mentality. I gave them a chance again last year because I thought there would be some changes. Once again they disappointed me. I'm done with those fools.

die2surf
08-03-2012, 7:59 AM
My comment about corporate structure was based entirely on the continued comments made by Brandon that complain about how nobody has input on the actions of CRPA. Those are the only similarities that I was pointing out.

Look, I don't give a Rat's @ss about the corporate structure of the CRPA, CGF, NRA, or the local Jewish Stuttering Foundation. I wasn't the OP complaining about the corporate structure and membership feedback opportunities of a particular group, however. I AM the one pointing out the publicly demonstrated double standard.

Beat me up if you want. Please prove me wrong. But answer the basic questions I asked as part of the public flogging.

You mean Jewish Stuttering Association, right? http://www.jstutter.org/

If...if...if...there is a foundatio...tio...tion somewhere, I would li..li..li..like t..t..t..to know about it.

L'chaim.

NoJoke
08-03-2012, 8:06 AM
Moleculos problem is he can't get an LTC in LA! :

Then I cut him a bunch of slack!
Disagree with how he's directing his frustration - agree with his contempt.

Let's straighten up CRPA and consolidate the energy!

moleculo
08-03-2012, 8:12 AM
He obviously doesn't. Moleculos problem is he can't get an LTC in LA! He wants a voice/vote to force CGF to do something down there. HE WILL DENY THIS! But it's true. Why else does he care about a"vote" within CGF? Mole, is not interested in 2A rights for all, he is interested in an LTC for him!! In fact it's all about him. See above how he "tries" to talk Brandon into a corner. LOL, Mole doesn't understand that Brandon doesn't work in a box.:rolleyes:

You keep quoting me on things that I've never said.

I'm more interested in accountability and transparency than anything else. That includes NRA, CRPA, CGF, SAF, whatever other 2A organizations are out there asking for and accepting funds in CA. Do any of these organizations publish a fair and balanced scorecard of wins/losses for their key activies? Do any of these organizations publish a balance sheet type schedule showing donations / legal fees received and what major activities those funds were used for? That's not meant to be rhetorical, but an honest question? What are the tools available to help the average gunny make a fact based decision on where their contribution is best made?

taperxz
08-03-2012, 8:21 AM
He obviously doesn't. Moleculos problem is he can't get an LTC in LA! He wants a voice/vote to force CGF to do something down there. HE WILL DENY THIS! But it's true. Why else does he care about a"vote" within CGF? Mole, is not interested in 2A rights for all, he is interested in an LTC for him!! In fact it's all about him. See above how he "tries" to talk Brandon into a corner. LOL, Mole doesn't understand that Brandon doesn't work in a box.:rolleyes:

Then I cut him a bunch of slack!
Disagree with how he's directing his frustration - agree with his contempt.

Let's straighten up CRPA and consolidate the energy!

Cut him some slack? Pssst, he is not interest in rights for all CA, just his LTC.

Do a little history on his posts.:rolleyes: Also note how he has attempted to derail Brandon's thread about CRPA here and convolute it into a CGF thread :rolleyes:

moleculo
08-03-2012, 8:26 AM
Cut him some slack? Pssst, he is not interest in rights for all CA, just his LTC.

Do a little history on his posts.

This is where I remind you again of your serious need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere have I posted that I care more about obtaining a CCW in LA than the overall 2A rights in CA. I've never even hinted at that.

taperxz
08-03-2012, 8:29 AM
This is where I remind you again of your serious need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere have I posted that I care more about obtaining a CCW in LA than the overall 2A rights in CA. I've never even hinted at that.

OKAYYYY. :TFH:

readysetgo
08-03-2012, 8:35 AM
@ moleculo

You've wasted 2 pages of this thread to a completely off topic subject. Start a new thread. Others have already answered your questions, you may disagree, however you're in the wrong thread to get answers about CGF. Obviously we cannot totally dictate what's posted on these boards, but we are a community here and the consesus seems to agree that you're waaaaaaay off topic. If you want to discuss the OP then discuss that here, if you want to talk to yourself, start a blog or something, if you're only after wildhawker (and his assoc. w/ CRPA and CGF, then take that to a private conversation. Pretty please!

@ THE ORIGINAL POST AND TOPIC

Yes, it seems NRA (the 4mil+ org) is easier to have a voice then CRPA.
CRPA should have regular member meetings in my opinion.
The highly restrictive quorum rules are a burden and should be addressed , again in my opinion as a member.

taperxz
08-03-2012, 8:40 AM
being in L.A., I get his frustration. I'm also tired of hearing that "L.A. isn't the right venue." It sounds an awful lot like, "we don't want to do it because it's too hard", so CGF might want to think about how to reshape that perception which is prevalent with gun owners in SoCal. Why do you think that Peruta went off on his own? Was it because he didn't give a F*** about the CGF strategy? No, it was because he was tired of hearing a message that sounded a lot like "it's too hard". -Moleculo

Let's remind the board of your true feelings^^^. Now back to the OP. welcome to my ignore list, heh I don't even have one.

moleculo
08-03-2012, 8:51 AM
Let's remind the board of your true feelings^^^. Now back to the OP. welcome to my ignore list, heh I don't even have one.

And where in there did I state in that post that I care more about CCW in LA than overall 2A rights in CA?

That post was made in an attempt to help some understand that the message that is sent out is perhaps not always the best way to garner support for CGF, a point which either I didn't explain well enough or you just completely misinterpreted.

moleculo
08-03-2012, 8:52 AM
@ moleculo

You've wasted 2 pages of this thread to a completely off topic subject. Start a new thread. Others have already answered your questions, you may disagree, however you're in the wrong thread to get answers about CGF. Obviously we cannot totally dictate what's posted on these boards, but we are a community here and the consesus seems to agree that you're waaaaaaay off topic. If you want to discuss the OP then discuss that here, if you want to talk to yourself, start a blog or something, if you're only after wildhawker (and his assoc. w/ CRPA and CGF, then take that to a private conversation. Pretty please!


Fair enough. But if others want to continue to engage me on THIS thread, then it's only fair for me to continue to respond. If others are done with it on this thread, then so am I.

Californio
08-03-2012, 8:54 AM
Well, we agree. It does not matter what I think, only that the Board has a Fiduciary obligation to follow the Law and they have been noticed by a competent Legal Opinion that they are in Breach.

Do you have a Link to the PDF that showed the vote tally at the meeting, that killed Gene's discussion from the floor, I would like to see how the Director voted that left a message on my machine?



They're probably going to try and counter with, "see, all these people didn't even know what they were signing" or some inflammatory thing.

It doesn't matter. there are plenty of sympathetic CRPA members with standing. The board has been noticed of the problems, I gave them a reasonable solution, and the board can either choose to take its duties seriously or try and hide behind more excuses.

-Brandon

sigma6
08-03-2012, 9:11 AM
I had this huge mega post but I got off topic.

In this direct comparison NRA vs CRPA, the larger org, the members have a larger voice. I know what the NRA does but not the CRPA. Why should I donate to them again?

OleCuss
08-03-2012, 9:22 AM
moleculo:

May I take a stab at this?

The purpose and structure of CRPA and that of CGF are wildly different. This is due at least in part to a very different purpose(s) to the organization(s).

CRPA is officially open and controlled by its membership. The reality appears to me to be somewhat different. I find the CRPA to be largely irrelevant to me whereas the CRPAF is not.

CGF is a very different organization. To a certain extent that is probably because CGF is designed to be quite elitist and litigious. Having regular and open meetings would suck up a huge proportion of its very limited budget and be an immense burden on its entirely unpaid staff. So the only voting members are the Board of Directors.

You and I could be members for the purposes of standing but there is no tacit, overt, or legal understanding that such membership would ever result in our being able to vote - very different from CRPA.

One huge difference between this closed, elitist, and secretive CGF and the CRPA?

If you ask the CGF a question there's a pretty good chance you'll get an answer - even if you are not a member in any sense.

Just try asking the CRPA for a meaningful answer to a probing question in any forum? Your best chance at getting an answer is from a CGF board member.

The officially unaccountable CGF is actually far more accountable than is the officially accountable CRPA.

readysetgo
08-03-2012, 9:33 AM
moleculo:

May I take a stab at this?

The purpose and structure of CRPA and that of CGF are wildly different. This is due at least in part to a very different purpose(s) to the organization(s).

CRPA is officially open and controlled by its membership. The reality appears to me to be somewhat different. I find the CRPA to be largely irrelevant to me whereas the CRPAF is not.

CGF is a very different organization. To a certain extent that is probably because CGF is designed to be quite elitist and litigious. Having regular and open meetings would suck up a huge proportion of its very limited budget and be an immense burden on its entirely unpaid staff. So the only voting members are the Board of Directors.

You and I could be members for the purposes of standing but there is no tacit, overt, or legal understanding that such membership would ever result in our being able to vote - very different from CRPA.

One huge difference between this closed, elitist, and secretive CGF and the CRPA?

If you ask the CGF a question there's a pretty good chance you'll get an answer - even if you are not a member in any sense.

Just try asking the CRPA for a meaningful answer to a probing question in any forum? Your best chance at getting an answer is from a CGF board member.

The officially unaccountable CGF is actually far more accountable than is the officially accountable CRPA.

OMG olecuss, he dropped it a few posts above!
See below (my emphasis added):
Fair enough. But if others want to continue to engage me on THIS thread, then it's only fair for me to continue to respond. If others are done with it on this thread, then so am I.

Just try asking the CRPA for a meaningful answer to a probing question in any forum?
OK! Can any director or executive of the CRPA please explain the reason it is so difficult for us as members to have a legitimate voice and engage our organization effectively?

Respectfully,
Ready

OleCuss
08-03-2012, 9:45 AM
OMG olecuss, he dropped it a few posts above!
See below (my emphasis added):
.
.
.

Your point is that I should drop it, too? Yeah, you're probably right.

Smokeybehr
08-03-2012, 11:44 AM
IIRC, CGF is a 501c3 (or maybe a 501c4), which is like a multitude of other charities out there. You don't expect to have a vote on how the charity spends its money when you donate it.

CRPA is an association, and you pay dues to the association for certain personal benefit. If you are not getting the benefit, then you can either leave the organization, or attempt to change how it operates, so that you do get those benefits.

Brandon, et al., are trying to change how CRPA operates from the inside by changing the bylaws of the Association. As I understand it, the current bylaws make it very difficult for an ordinary member to affect change on the organization. The structure of how the board and committees are selected (not elected) is one of the major issues.

IMO, CRPA is far more closed, elitist and secretive than CGF is.

Californio
08-03-2012, 12:05 PM
I found the PDF on SaveCRPA.org

The director I got a VM from was a Yes vote.


Well, we agree. It does not matter what I think, only that the Board has a Fiduciary obligation to follow the Law and they have been noticed by a competent Legal Opinion that they are in Breach.

Do you have a Link to the PDF that showed the vote tally at the meeting, that killed Gene's discussion from the floor, I would like to see how the Director voted that left a message on my machine?

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 12:13 PM
Well, we agree. It does not matter what I think, only that the Board has a Fiduciary obligation to follow the Law and they have been noticed by a competent Legal Opinion that they are in Breach.

Do you have a Link to the PDF that showed the vote tally at the meeting, that killed Gene's discussion from the floor, I would like to see how the Director voted that left a message on my machine?

The vote tally is here: http://savecrpa.org/index.php/background-info/10-crpa-board-vote-against-discussion-on-member-rights-participation-democracy.

-Brandon

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 12:15 PM
I found the PDF on SaveCRPA.org

The director I got a VM from was a Yes vote.

I wish I could say that such is surprising, but...

More of the same.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
08-03-2012, 12:37 PM
Some of the recent court rulings have disagreed with CGF associative legal standing in relation with the plaintiff that has filed. Since CGF is actively fighting in court for 2A causes, if the court does not always agree that there is an association between the plaintiff and CGF, and the proposed plaintiffs don't appear have any membership privileges under the CGF corporate structure, how exactly are those that donate to CGF participating members of CGF?


SAF had standing all the way up to SCOTUS to challenge Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald, despite attempts by the city to strip them of standing. The same with Ezell in the 7th Circuit, which challenged the firing range ban.

SAF and CGF are structurally the same because they are both 501(c)(3)'s. Unlike SAF, however, CGF is not meant by it's founders to be a perpetual organization like SAF has to be.

CRPA Foundation, for example, is the only organization that has anything in common with CGF. They don't have memberships, either, yet their standing was not at issue in Peruta when they were part of that lawsuit.

The mistaken rulings of bay area federal judges at the district level who have shown disdain for 2nd amendment rights in the cases filed with them is not an indicia that CGF is doing something wrong. It's an indicia of their unwillingness to take 2nd amendment rights seriously, when they have ruled that the ACLU of Northern California and other similar organizations that don't have "memberships" have standing. It's anti-2A hate. That's all.

romadant
08-03-2012, 12:45 PM
No.

Are you quite done using this forum section as a platform for your dissatisfaction with CRPA? As a CGF member, it might be perceived that you get a lot of leeway in this section on post content that many other CGN members might not be afforded the same opportunity.

I'm glad these discussions are had here and hope wildhawker and others continue to have them.

I will also be sending all my 2A support money to places NOT named CRPA until they makes some changes.

wash
08-03-2012, 1:19 PM
And where in there did I state in that post that I care more about CCW in LA than overall 2A rights in CA?

That post was made in an attempt to help some understand that the message that is sent out is perhaps not always the best way to garner support for CGF, a point which either I didn't explain well enough or you just completely misinterpreted.

Luckily CGF gets enough support, they don't have to garner the support of the lowest common denominator and I like it that way.

CGF has a mission to fight for Californians second amendment civil rights, they have a strategy for that battle and they are executing it despite the objections of people who think they know better.

moleculo
08-03-2012, 3:25 PM
Luckily CGF gets enough support, they don't have to garner the support of the lowest common denominator and I like it that way.

There isn't really such a thing as enough support when it comes to fighting 2A issues in CA.

taperxz
08-03-2012, 4:32 PM
Luckily CGF gets enough support, they don't have to garner the support of the lowest common denominator and I like it that way.

CGF has a mission to fight for Californians second amendment civil rights, they have a strategy for that battle and they are executing it despite the objections of people who think they know better.
__________________




Four guys are digging a hole. 3 of them are actually digging the hole. The fourth guy is up top yelling at the 3 guys that they are doing it wrong and at the same time shoveling the dirt back in the hole on top of the 3 guys. No one needs that kind of support.

moleculo
08-03-2012, 4:46 PM
Four guys are digging a hole. 3 of them are actually digging the hole. The fourth guy is up top yelling at the 3 guys that they are doing it wrong and at the same time shoveling the dirt back in the hole on top of the 3 guys. No one needs that kind of support.

Jim Jones had plenty of cheerleaders telling how great he was all the time.

Plenty of people in this forum section mistake asking specific, poignant questions for being a non supporter. Some choose to be a supporter with blindfolds on, ear plugs in, and mouths shut. Some choose to be a supporter with eyes and ears open, having a conversation along the way. Both types of supporters are valuable, even if some choose not to endorse that idea. For every one of me that is willing to openly share thoughts, there are probably 100 more that might have the same ideas but never share them. As the saying goes, iron sharpens iron, but not everyone is going to understand that analogy.

Gray Peterson
08-03-2012, 4:52 PM
Jim Jones had plenty of cheerleaders telling how great he was all the time.

Last I checked, CGF wasn't asking you to move to a colony in Guyana, or making poison-laced kool-aid.

Don't be an *******.

Californio
08-03-2012, 5:51 PM
Last I checked, CGF wasn't asking you to move to a colony in Guyana, or making poison-laced kool-aid.

Don't be an *******.

Hey wait a minute my GG Grandmother was born in Guyana:)

pieeater
08-03-2012, 8:20 PM
Luckily CGF gets enough support,

How much support do they get? Last IRS filings I can find are from 2008

wash
08-03-2012, 11:44 PM
I can't really speculate about their budget but there is their Amazon thing with posted monthly totals, CGF store sales and straight donations.

They get things done and are not spending their time on fundraising...

freonr22
08-03-2012, 11:55 PM
How much support do they get? Last IRS filings I can find are from 2008

What is the reasoning behind 4 years late filings? I totally respect Gene, not a troll comment.

Pinto
08-04-2012, 7:51 AM
What is the reasoning behind 4 years late filings? I totally respect Gene, not a troll comment.

Explaination from Gene earlier this year. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8162142&postcount=327)

Fyathyrio
08-04-2012, 1:42 PM
Sorry if this question is on topic...

What (if anything) has the NRA had to say about this situation with CRPA? Do they support their flagship state organization being run with no voice from their members?

wash
08-04-2012, 2:24 PM
Unfortunately some of the people who should be reforming CRPA for the NRA are happy with the status quo because CRPA money is coming their way...

dantodd
08-04-2012, 2:35 PM
You guys are just feeding a troll. moleculo is just an anonymous mouthpiece for those on the CRPA board who would deny you a voice in how our membership organization is run. He is attempting to do the bidding of his masters by detailing every thread that discusses the inadequacies of the current CRPA structure.

Now, it is possible that I am wrong but to believe that one would have to think that Moleculo is actually really really stupid as he has been incapable of understanding things like the differences between the way CRPA and CGF are organized.

wash
08-04-2012, 2:58 PM
I think it's something different, he has a problem with something CGF is or isn't doing, so he attacks everything CGF or a CGF board member does.

moleculo
08-05-2012, 11:28 PM
I think it's something different, he has a problem with something CGF is or isn't doing, so he attacks everything CGF or a CGF board member does.

I don't attack everything CGF does, not even close. I haven't really even attacked anything CGF has done. I have asked questions about how decisions are made, how money is used, and how the organization operates.

I would like to see some transparency in how donations are used. I don't believe that it is a smart decision to donate to charitable organizations that hide behind a "give money, but don't ask questions" cloak of secrecy. I believe that any organization fighting for our 2A rights should produce a balanced scorecard of their activities to help us all understand which organization to get behind. I also believe that CGF sometimes/regularly shoots itself in the foot in the PR department with those who would otherwise be their supporters because of some of the messages that are delivered on CGN. They will never hear from those who are disappointed with the message because most will just click onto the next thread or website without wasting any energy because they know it will only end with public denigration of their opinion.

Gray, I'm disappointed that instead of thinking about the Jim Jones metaphor I used, you simply dismissed it as me being an @$s. How many posts are there in this section about people proclaiming to drink the CGF kool-aid? It's so common, that I figured it was an easy metaphor! How are we, the average CA to be assured that the money we donate to CGF isn't being used on crap litigation that will ultimately end up being the kool-aid money that sinks all of our 2A rights in CA? Right now, we have no such assurances. I see no balanced scorecard of wins and losses that fairly represents the CGF story. I hope that I am wrong and would really like for CGF to be the organization that I get behind for 2A wins in CA, but it is difficult to do. CGF doesn't even produce a annual report showing funds taken in and a schedule of what the money was used for! On the surface, it appears that CGF wants to represent that they are a big-time, powerful 2A lobby with significant legal prowess, except that they appear to be as financially accountable as the local high school cheerleader squad that does car washes and bake sales to raise funds. Forgive me, but I have too many close friends and have actual family that were bamboozled by other non-profits that operated similarly. Fortunately I also know what a respectable, well run charity looks like, as well.

If you view my observations as an attack on CGF, then you're not thinking hard enough about what I am saying. All of the issues that I am raising questions about can EASILY be remedied, and could ultimately help provide more confidence in both CGF as an organization and as means to gain back our 2A rights in CA. I don't personally know ANYONE that is a gunny who has donated to CGF (I know quite a few gunnies!) and a lot of that has to do with the reasons I've outlined.

I think I've said entirely enough on this topic. Those who want to think about this point of view will, and those who want to drink kool-aid will, as well.

Gray Peterson
08-06-2012, 1:00 AM
I don't attack everything CGF does, not even close. I haven't really even attacked anything CGF has done. I have asked questions about how decisions are made, how money is used, and how the organization operates.

I would like to see some transparency in how donations are used. I don't believe that it is a smart decision to donate to charitable organizations that hide behind a "give money, but don't ask questions" cloak of secrecy. I believe that any organization fighting for our 2A rights should produce a balanced scorecard of their activities to help us all understand which organization to get behind.

CGF Scorecard (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/about/what-has-cgf-done-for-me-lately.html)


Defended Bright Spot Pawn from AW charges: http://bit.ly/7FC20j

Defended John Contos from AW charges: http://bit.ly/4wQDpv

Defended UOC-ing Marine charged in Oceanside: http://bit.ly/8o6nE5

Defended large-capacity magazine charge.

Gutted DC's adoption of California's Handgun Roster: http://bit.ly/8JhGZa

Defended Don Anderson against AW charges: http://bit.ly/6L0Ykb

Defended legal AR (Orange County Sheriff Department AR seizure): http://bit.ly/7xHFgT

Defended charges of illegal carry, established shotgun is not concealable upon the person: http://bit.ly/5GZjav

Assisted Theseus fundraising: http://bit.ly/5IAWq4

Assisted LA Airport AW case fundraising: http://bit.ly/6erDF9

Filed an Amicus in McDonald supporting P or I Incorporation: http://bit.ly/4ZFNJX

Assisted in defeating San Mateo County LCAV ordinances: http://bit.ly/5Ourca

Funded UOC Lawsuit vs. San Diego: http://bit.ly/byxMDw

Nordyke amicus brief, shows gun show ban has no crime effect: http://bit.ly/bNnRkJ

SAF/CGF gun ads negate SF MTA anti-gun policy: http://bit.ly/8XNCFc


CGF Projects Underway:


Peņa - Handgun Roster is Unconstitutional: Peņa v. Cid. District court for numerous years after continual Nordyke stays.

Richards - License to carry must be shall issue: Richards v. Prieto. Richards is currently in the 9th Circuit, delayed due to Nordyke and McDonald.

Peterson - Partial funding of Peterson v. LaCabe, (right to carry/travel): http://bit.ly/972uyl

Ventura - Governments must disclose public records: CGF v. County of Ventura

Min. Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program for firearms issues: http://bit.ly/buY43R

Challenged DOJ rulemaking on DROS fees, demanded audit: http://bit.ly/cX6rvA


California License to Carry Compliance and Education Program related:



Changed Ventura County's LTC process policy to be fully compliant with state law.

Converted Sacramento to a "self defense" good cause policy (NOT shall-issue, but, that's what Richards is now for).

Solano County reduced their illegal LTC fees down to state standard, and refunded money to LTC applications that they stole from for years.

Lawsuits filed against Merced County (Rossow v. Pazin) and Los Angeles County (Lu v. Baca) for law violative LTC policies.


More:

Silvester v. Harris: Waiting period challenge. Still in district court.
CGF v. San Mateo County: Challenge on parks ban per preemption. Lost in Superior Court, appealing in 1DCA of the California Court of Appeals.


and before you start with the "It hasn't been updated", crap, CGF moving to a new website platform which will allow easier updating of the site (to the person who's doing the designing, I know you're reading this, thank you so much!).

I also believe that CGF sometimes/regularly shoots itself in the foot in the PR department with those who would otherwise be their supporters because of some of the messages that are delivered on CGN. They will never hear from those who are disappointed with the message because most will just click onto the next thread or website without wasting any energy because they know it will only end with public denigration of their opinion.

Please. You're not being denigrated because of your opinion. You're being denigrated because you're implying the people who spent numerous years and tremendous amounts of their own time and money to the effort that they are doing something shady. Would YOU react well to it?

Gray, I'm disappointed that instead of thinking about the Jim Jones metaphor I used, you simply dismissed it as me being an @$s. How many posts are there in this section about people proclaiming to drink the CGF kool-aid? It's so common, that I figured it was an easy metaphor!

Sorry, but two wrongs don't make right here. I don't think it's a good idea to make jokes on a written form on a forum located in a state where the Jones Cult originated from, who have family members who died in Guyana. Call it a pet peeve.

How are we, the average CA to be assured that the money we donate to CGF isn't being used on crap litigation that will ultimately end up being the kool-aid money that sinks all of our 2A rights in CA? Right now, we have no such assurances. I see no balanced scorecard of wins and losses that fairly represents the CGF story. I hope that I am wrong and would really like for CGF to be the organization that I get behind for 2A wins in CA, but it is difficult to do.

A list of active cases, though updates are waiting for a move to a new platform:

Litigation Nationwide (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Litigation_Past_and_Present)

CGF doesn't even produce a annual report showing funds taken in and a schedule of what the money was used for!

Ask Second Amendment Foundation for the same information. They'll tell you to pound sand for releasing a detailed report, too. Considering they were the ones who funded the McDonald case, that's pretty good company to be in compared to a guy who does nothing but continually harangue volunteers for information beyond what is legally required.

SAF has overhead in that they have permanent staff (though because of their national profile, this is understandable), so it is intended to go in perpetuity. CGF does not, and unless you want anywhere from 40K to 80K of the annual donations received by CGF to pay a full time staff director, rather than going to the lawyers to pay their sustenance fees for keeping gun owners like you out of jail when a cop screws up, or even if you screw up by forgetting to unload that magazine in your trunk.

On the surface, it appears that CGF wants to represent that they are a big-time, powerful 2A lobby

CGF is not a lobbying organization. A limited amount of lobbying is allowed to CGF per the IRS 501(c)(3) tax code, and all of that limited amount of lobbying is being used towards stopping SB249 from becoming law. CGF and Cal-FFL are working on that issue together. The lobbyists in Sacramento is Ed Worley (of the NRA-ILA) and Tom Pedersen (of the CRPA), not of CGF.

with significant legal prowess

Alan Gura. 'nuff said.

except that they appear to be as financially accountable as the local high school cheerleader squad that does car washes and bake sales to raise funds. Forgive me, but I have too many close friends and have actual family that were bamboozled by other non-profits that operated similarly. Fortunately I also know what a respectable, well run charity looks like, as well.

CGF was never intended to be a permanent entity in the same vane as SAF.

Do you have any actual evidence of CGF bamboozling people, or is this similar to "Unless you release the information, we'll consider you guilty of what we're accusing you of" things? Last I checked, CGF isn't running for the US Presidency.

Put up or shut up.

If you view my observations as an attack on CGF, then you're not thinking hard enough about what I am saying. All of the issues that I am raising questions about can EASILY be remedied, and could ultimately help provide more confidence in both CGF as an organization and as means to gain back our 2A rights in CA. I don't personally know ANYONE that is a gunny who has donated to CGF (I know quite a few gunnies!) and a lot of that has to do with the reasons I've outlined.


and just remember, we'll still help you if the cops misidentify your gun as an AW because they can't tell the difference between a muzzle brake and a flash suppressor.

What we do was already identified and well so. If the scorecard above isn't enough, then I really don't know what to say to that.

Just remember when you get your carry license without fear of it being revoked because the sheriff doesn't like you for some reason, it'll be because CGF board, core volunteer group, among others made it happen, the same people you are implying are engaging in shady practices.

tbhracing
08-06-2012, 1:18 AM
Tagged.

Gray Peterson
08-06-2012, 2:12 AM
You guys are just feeding a troll. moleculo is just an anonymous mouthpiece for those on the CRPA board who would deny you a voice in how our membership organization is run. He is attempting to do the bidding of his masters by detailing every thread that discusses the inadequacies of the current CRPA structure.

Now, it is possible that I am wrong but to believe that one would have to think that Moleculo is actually really really stupid as he has been incapable of understanding things like the differences between the way CRPA and CGF are organized.

QFT

bwiese
08-06-2012, 2:17 AM
1. Legal entities are best structured where lawyers/small working board drive the strategy, and a variety of aspects are kept under the cuff.

People can donate whether or not they want to. We generally try to say or hint where we're going.

We hope folks want to donate - I think there's been enough examples of what we're doing, what we're trying to do, and the fact that CGF expense-to-output ratio is very low.

Note that like CGF, CRPA Foundation and NRA-ILA/CRDF are separate for their major organizations.


2. A general gunrights organization, by contrast is supposed to be 'representative'. There's monies to be disbursed, there's choices of efforts to focus upon, there's efficiences (or lack thereof) that need monitoring, output needing monitoring, etc.

NRA has that formal structure - and it worked when, in 1977, it righted itself and ejected an old guard in order to start becoming a far more politically active group riding up the learning curve.

CRPA - outside of its fine lobbyist who I will back 100% and walk thru fire for - just doesn't "get" politics and suffers from some of its past history.

tenpercentfirearms
08-06-2012, 6:13 AM
I don't attack everything CGF does, not even close. I haven't really even attacked anything CGF has done. I have asked questions about how decisions are made, how money is used, and how the organization operates. I notice you used the past tense here. That might be accurate.

CGF doesn't even produce a annual report showing funds taken in and a schedule of what the money was used for! On the surface, it appears that CGF wants to represent that they are a big-time, powerful 2A lobby with significant legal prowess, except that they appear to be as financially accountable as the local high school cheerleader squad that does car washes and bake sales to raise funds. Forgive me, but I have too many close friends and have actual family that were bamboozled by other non-profits that operated similarly. Fortunately I also know what a respectable, well run charity looks like, as well.We are financially as accountable as a local high school cheerleader squad? You have family that have been bamboozled by other non-profits that operated similarly? You know what a respectable, well run charity looks like?

Then you say this.

If you view my observations as an attack on CGF, then you're not thinking hard enough about what I am saying.

Or your words write for themselves. Yeah we do not have to think hard when we can clearly see you are attacking CGF. Which is fine. Haters are always going to hate, especially when we are winning.

To those of you out there that for some reason think moleculo has valid points and don't understand the difference between CGF and the NRA/CRPA, I assure you your donations are not being wasted. Your money is being used directly for the fight for your gun rights here in California. Thank you to Gray Peterson for showing some evidence of that fight and our success.

For those of you who see moleculo's questions as obtuse and his failure to understand the issues at hand, we thank you for your continued support. A man's honor and integrity should be worth something. I give you my word CGF is being responsible with their donations and we use that money to defend the rights of Californians. If there ever comes a time when that money is being wasted or something shady starts happening, I will let you know.

My honor and integrity are definitely worth more than the nothing I get paid for being a CGF board member.

There comes a certain amount of faith involved that the gun owners who sit on the board of CGF are going to do what is right for not only themselves, but all of their fellow gun owners. If you doubt our honesty and integrity or better yet our results, then please find some other worthy gun rights organization to donate to. I see many of you know what we do and you continue to help us make the good fight. And that I appreciate and thank you for it.

We might not be able to always win in the legislature, but CGF is not a lobbying organization. And that is why we have been winning in the courts and will continue to win.

Scarecrow Repair
08-06-2012, 8:54 AM
How are we, the average CA to be assured that the money we donate to CGF isn't being used on crap litigation that will ultimately end up being the kool-aid money that sinks all of our 2A rights in CA? Right now, we have no such assurances.

I send CGF money every month and am quite satisfied. Your implication is that I am too stupid to know what to do with my own money and need you to look after my fiscal well-being. Control freak statist much?

I would not even thank you were you to butt out of my business, since that is the minimum I expect of everyone else.