PDA

View Full Version : The Real Story On Peruta (Gene's Wrong)


Pages : [1] 2

mike_schwartz@mail.com
12-06-2012, 6:19 PM
I am not looking for this to be an “I told you so” post. However, Gene Hoffman is generally considered a leader on this site and his behavior was inexcusable in his recent Peruta post.

First the case…the reason the same notification to the State of California is not given in the Pertua case as in the Richards case is because Peruta is a far more specific case that isn’t challenging a state’s law. It is a lawsuit against the sheriff of San Diego County and his specific policies when issuing concealed weapon licenses. Yes, they are being argued in the same courtroom and in front of the same judges, but they are different cases, possibly with different outcomes and differing results.

Peruta is not challenging the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry licensing. Peruta is challenging the County of San Diego and how their Sheriff complies with state law. Richards is much broader.

Because the Peruta case is against San Diego County Sheriff Gore, there is no requirement to notify California. The case is against Gore and Gore alone; not CA. It is my understanding that under the 11th Amendment the State of California isn’t held responsible for decisions a county’s sheriff makes. So by notifying Sheriff Gore that he’s being sued, the attorney on our side in Peruta did what he needed to do. The lawyer for Gore said in the oral argument that he contacted the AG's office years ago when this was filed.

Now, that’s a very basic, down and dirty explanation and I may have missed some nuance, but an important point I want to make is from that last sentence: “our side”.

How could Gene Hoffman not know why the same notice wasn’t given in the Peruta case? Still, he chose to leave that part out of his post in an attempt to drag some names through the mud. Not names associated with LCAV or the Brady Org, but names associated with NRA and ILA. The people on our side.

I don’t know why Gene behaved this way. I’ve torn into a few pro-gun folks myself due to my passion on the subject and out of frustration. And that may be part of it here, but my fear is it has to do more with money or ego. That we cannot stand for. And I encourage all of you to ignore that type of behavior when it happens again or better yet, point it out to Gene when he does it again.

Even if comes back to the board with hat in hand and says he simply did not understand, that is no excuse for his post and comments about people on our team. Ask the question rather than just start throwing around accusations, Gene. I am not looking to fight further with Gene or Brandon or Gray or Bill. But I am asking the rest reading this to question, in a professional and constructive manner, to look for this. And question those who make inflammatory statements about those who are on our team. We are not going to win anything if we continue to fight with allies or put up with leadership that does.

Gene…know your friends, know your enemies, know the difference. –Joel Friedman (Joel may not have made it up, but he said it the first time I heard it and it was in reference to the gun community so I credit him when I steal it.)

Oral arguments for Peruta: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010109

dave86
12-06-2012, 6:33 PM
My friend, It is unkind to chastise a man in such a public manner.

mike_schwartz@mail.com
12-06-2012, 6:39 PM
Agreed, dave86.

And this could look hypocritical that I am doing exactly what I am complaining about to a small extent, but the first draft of this was far to vague and what I am talking about needs to end. It's important. It was better to risk how this post could appear than to watch this crap happen again and again and again.

FoxTrot87
12-06-2012, 6:43 PM
The OP is making an observation and not letting political correctness stand in his way. He made a well constructed argument and did so without stating his "reasonings" as facts. He did not try to mislead and addresses an "elephant in the room."

The side of Justice or Beliefs does not make us immune to being human.

wash
12-06-2012, 7:45 PM
Peruta is still a badly designed copy cat case with the wrong plaintiff in the wrong jurisdiction which set back California right to carry by 2-3 years.

Whatever else it is hardly matters.

Cali-Shooter
12-06-2012, 7:50 PM
Waiting to hear Gene's side of the story on this to see if it is really true. If it is, Gene would acknowledge it.

moleculo
12-06-2012, 8:10 PM
Whether you agree with the OP on this topic or not, Gene still has some explaining to do on why he accused the NRA attorneys of Malpractice in that thread. Given Gene's position at CGF, it seems such statements could be considered libelous without some serious backup material?

moleculo
12-06-2012, 8:26 PM
Peruta is still a badly designed copy cat case with the wrong plaintiff in the wrong jurisdiction which set back California right to carry by 2-3 years.


The topic of the OP has nothing to do with that. The behavior exhibited by the Chairman of the CGF in that thread and others similar to it of late show a real lack of leadership. When the leader behaves like that, it causes his immediate followers (Brandon & Gray in that example) to believe that such behavior is acceptable and they proceed to pile on. This is inexcusable and needs to end.



Whatever else it is hardly matters.

Leadership always matters. It usually matters above all else.

taperxz
12-06-2012, 8:31 PM
I am not looking for this to be an “I told you so” post. However, Gene Hoffman is generally considered a leader on this site and his behavior was inexcusable in his recent Peruta post.

First the case…the reason the same notification to the State of California is not given in the Pertua case as in the Richards case is because Peruta is a far more specific case that isn’t challenging a state’s law. It is a lawsuit against the sheriff of San Diego County and his specific policies when issuing concealed weapon licenses. Yes, they are being argued in the same courtroom and in front of the same judges, but they are different cases, possibly with different outcomes and differing results.

Peruta is not challenging the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry licensing. Peruta is challenging the County of San Diego and how their Sheriff complies with state law. Richards is much broader.

Because the Peruta case is against San Diego County Sheriff Gore, there is no requirement to notify California. The case is against Gore and Gore alone; not CA. It is my understanding that under the 11th Amendment the State of California isn’t held responsible for decisions a county’s sheriff makes. So by notifying Sheriff Gore that he’s being sued, the attorney on our side in Peruta did what he needed to do. The lawyer for Gore said in the oral argument that he contacted the AG's office years ago when this was filed.

Now, that’s a very basic, down and dirty explanation and I may have missed some nuance, but an important point I want to make is from that last sentence: “our side”.

How could Gene Hoffman not know why the same notice wasn’t given in the Peruta case? Still, he chose to leave that part out of his post in an attempt to drag some names through the mud. Not names associated with LCAV or the Brady Org, but names associated with NRA and ILA. The people on our side.

I don’t know why Gene behaved this way. I’ve torn into a few pro-gun folks myself due to my passion on the subject and out of frustration. And that may be part of it here, but my fear is it has to do more with money or ego. That we cannot stand for. And I encourage all of you to ignore that type of behavior when it happens again or better yet, point it out to Gene when he does it again.

Even if comes back to the board with hat in hand and says he simply did not understand, that is no excuse for his post and comments about people on our team. Ask the question rather than just start throwing around accusations, Gene. I am not looking to fight further with Gene or Brandon or Gray or Bill. But I am asking the rest reading this to question, in a professional and constructive manner, to look for this. And question those who make inflammatory statements about those who are on our team. We are not going to win anything if we continue to fight with allies or put up with leadership that does.

Gene…know your friends, know your enemies, know the difference. –Joel Friedman (Joel may not have made it up, but he said it the first time I heard it and it was in reference to the gun community so I credit him when I steal it.)

Oral arguments for Peruta: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010109

I have no idea where you get this from at all. Alan Gura also specified that the challenge here was against Prieto and his policies too. Where Peruta fails is simply that they are only challenging "good cause" only!

When dealing with Prieto, they are challenging good cause AND the moral character requirement.

If Peruta were to challenged by itself, he may win the good cause requirement but still leaving any sheriff in this state with the ability to deny an applicant based on moral character. What that means is that if the Sheriff doesn't like the way you dress or smell, denials on Moral Character would eliminate ones ability to get an LTC.

I think its time you fact check you arguments in regards to Hoffmang

taperxz
12-06-2012, 8:35 PM
The topic of the OP has nothing to do with that. The behavior exhibited by the Chairman of the CGF in that thread and others similar to it of late show a real lack of leadership. When the leader behaves like that, it causes his immediate followers (Brandon & Gray in that example) to believe that such behavior is acceptable and they proceed to pile on. This is inexcusable and needs to end.




Leadership always matters. It usually matters above all else.

And of course you have done what to get all CA citizens what? to gain an LTC? Other than post your complaints here?

BTW i got my LTC AND convinced our Sheriff to run on a pro LTC platform to eliminate all illegal requirements that the incumbent sheriff had in place;)

YES me personally and he still knows exactly who i am and that i was representing CGF!

tcrpe
12-06-2012, 8:44 PM
Well, reading and following the various threads and posts on this subject, I'm surprised it appears to be degenerating into a belly bucking contest like this. :shrug:

Devilinbp
12-06-2012, 8:48 PM
And of course you have done what to get all CA citizens what? to gain an LTC? Other than post your complaints here?

BTW i got my LTC AND convinced our Sheriff to run on a pro LTC platform to eliminate all illegal requirements that the incumbent sheriff had in place;)

YES me personally and he still knows exactly who i am and that i was representing CGF!

I'd love to see you try to do that with Sheriff Gore, heck i'd love anyone to try and do that with Sheriff Gore. Wait.....i think Peruta is trying.

taperxz
12-06-2012, 8:50 PM
I'd love to see you try to do that with Sheriff Gore, heck i'd love anyone to try and do that with Sheriff Gore. Wait.....i think Peruta is trying.

If he is trying so hard why do they leave out the challenge of moral character that is part of the state statute?

hoffmang
12-06-2012, 10:06 PM
First the case…the reason the same notification to the State of California is not given in the Pertua case as in the Richards case is because Peruta is a far more specific case that isn’t challenging a state’s law. It is a lawsuit against the sheriff of San Diego County and his specific policies when issuing concealed weapon licenses. Yes, they are being argued in the same courtroom and in front of the same judges, but they are different cases, possibly with different outcomes and differing results.

Then why did the 9th Circuit Panel issue the order asking about compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Peruta? If you've listened to the oral arguments, the only reason Richards challenges the state statute facially is to avoid the argument put forth by Gore that the real problem is with the statute. Richards didn't need the state statute to fall to turn Sacramento County virtually shall issue. Any unbiased listen to the orals today will show how critical the change we forced in Sacramento is.

Peruta is not challenging the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry licensing. Peruta is challenging the County of San Diego and how their Sheriff complies with state law. Richards is much broader.
That's incorrect on both scores. State law grants discretion to the sheriff. Discretion is unconstitutional. Trying to hide from the partial challenge to the state statute is cute and maybe even a strategy, but not the law.

I don’t know why Gene behaved this way.
This is simple. I put more stock in what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure than I do about your opinion of the FRCP.

-Gene

mike_schwartz@mail.com
12-07-2012, 6:00 AM
raperxz, thank you for your efforts and success. Truly. That is fantastic work on your part. To make a point, what would be your reaction if after you did all of this work, Gene posted a thread saying you are incompetent and the reason he did this is because your efforts only affect licensed carry in your county?

To clarify, I have respect and admiration for all the good that Gene and many others have done regarding our right to keep and bear arms. My complaint is with the internal fighting and bashing of others that are also making efforts. Gene could have stated his opinion without bashing the NRA-ILA, their efforts, their case, their client, and their attorney.

Gene, during the Peruta section both Clement and Gore's attorney agreed there was no need to get CA involved since Peruta is a challenge only to Gore’s policies. Gore's office notified the AG and the AG declined to get involved. There was very little further discussion on whether or not the state should be involved. If CA were involved, this would have broadened the scope of Peruta, weakening the focused case they are making and going in the opposite direction of their strategy. This is something you knew when you originally posted that the Peruta attorneys made a mistake and were unfit to try the case. It is not true. And what you just posted purposely leaves out facts pertinent to the discussion which is not the right thing to do.

As a leader in the position you are in you have got to be straight forward in your discussions and you have got to stop bashing other pro-gunners and pro-gun orgs.

The rest of us need to respectfully and honestly hold those who do bash us and the pro-guns orgs we respect responsible. Especially when the basher is on our side.

I am not going to go around and around playing word games. Disagree with the case and/or the strategy, but don't leave out facts and make false accusations in an attempt to disparage respected people in our gun community.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 6:10 AM
Then why did the 9th Circuit Panel issue the order asking about compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Peruta?

I dunno, why did the 9th Circuit Panel issue the order asking about compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Richards?

Trying to hide from the partial challenge to the state statute is cute and maybe even a strategy, but not the law.

So you did know the counter argument before starting the inflammatory malpractice thread! lol.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 6:12 AM
@ Mike

The problems with most of what you are talking about is that all the people concerned that you have mentioned all have a personal type relationship. They all want to have the magic winning case.

There is money involved in winning!!! I don't really care about any of that because i know i will not be getting any money, win lose or draw AND I already have an LTC.

Mr. Peruta left me a PM about my comments above. I personally hope Ed wins his case, for him. I explained my point of view in a reply.

I stand by what i stated though. I have met both Gene and Ed Worley and respect both of them for the work they do.

ZNinerFan
12-07-2012, 6:48 AM
Having listened to the oral arguments in Peruta, it became painfully obvious that the attorney for San Diego County pretty much punted and deflected the plaintiffs argument by basically calling the State law under which the sheriffs authority comes from unconstitutional in regards to CCW permit issuance. The rest of his arguments were emotional pleas.

In contrast with Richards, where Yolo County couldn't pass the buck to the State because the State law was also being challenged.

I understand there is a difference in scope between the two cases but I can't help but wonder if the appellate court judges didn't see the writing in the wall and ask the question "Why aren't you guys challenging the State Law or at least including the State law in your challenge?"

Peruta - No

Richards - Yes

I can't speak to the personal conflicts that have come up but I would like to think we are all on the side of the angels when it comes to fighting for our civil rights.

Disclaimer, I'm not an attorney or employed in the legal profession in any capacity nor do I claim to have any knowledge beyond the average citizen.

I did enjoy listening to all 3 arguments and wish I could get away from the office and attend.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 6:53 AM
Having listened to the oral arguments in Peruta, it became painfully obvious that the attorney for San Diego County pretty much punted and deflected the plaintiffs argument by basically calling the State law under which the sheriffs authority comes from unconstitutional in regards to CCW permit issuance. The rest of his arguments were emotional pleas.

In contrast with Richards, where Yolo County couldn't pass the buck to the State because the State law was also being challenged.

I understand there is a difference in scope between the two cases but I can't help but wonder if the appellate court judges didn't see the writing in the wall and ask the question "Why aren't you guys challenging the State Law or at least including the State law in your challenge?"

Peruta - No

Richards - Yes

I can't speak to the personal conflicts that have come up but I would like to think we are all on the side of the angels when it comes to fighting for our civil rights.

Disclaimer, I'm not an attorney or employed in the legal profession in any capacity nor do I claim to have any knowledge beyond the average citizen.

I did enjoy listening to all 3 arguments and wish I could get away from the office and attend.

Maybe i'm mistaken, didn't the justices acknowledge the idea that a Sheriff is in fact representative of the state? Or an "actor" for the state? In this instance would they then believe that a challenge to the state would be complete with that actor present?

ZNinerFan
12-07-2012, 7:02 AM
It is my understanding that Counties are technically an extension of the State or at least that was what I always disclosed in my notes when I prepared the Financial Statements. So in that regard you could say that the State was present and represented.

I can see the argument that the state law is good but sheriff Gores policies are bad, which is what this lawsuit is arguing. But how does this address the statewide inconsistencies in the issuance of CCW permits?

I know that is outside of the scope of the case. It's just my question. Sacramento now issues CCW but that has no bearing on Sonoma and Marin Counties.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 7:11 AM
It is my understanding that Counties are technically an extension of the State or at least that was what I always disclosed in my notes when I prepared the Financial Statements. So in that regard you could say that the State was present and represented.

I can see the argument that the state law is good but sheriff Gores policies are bad, which is what this lawsuit is arguing. But how does this address the statewide inconsistencies in the issuance of CCW permits?

I know that is outside of the scope of the case. It's just my question. Sacramento now issues CCW but that has no bearing on Sonoma and Marin Counties.

I think the state law is terrible. It allows Sheriffs like Gore to abuse the statute.

What i would have liked to hear from Peruta is the opposite of what the justice asked in regards to Sac. Peruta should have told the judges that IF tomorrow, Sheriff Gore was for some reason no longer sheriff, and a newly appointed or voted sheriff were put into place. That new sheriff could wake up the next day, feel like issuing LTC's for no other reason than "because he feels like it" and accept a good cause of "it's because of the unicorns"

The Shadow
12-07-2012, 7:16 AM
Bottom line to all here, I don't see "Shall Issue" happening in California anytime soon because a majority of California law enforcement, and the legislators will not let it happen.

In other words, rank and file cops and their handlers will be brought in to testify in front of the senate and assembly, and they will paint a horrific picture of the old "blood in the streets" scenario, which of course will be opposed by our side. But the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS will ignore the pro-gun rebuttal, and all of the historical evidence that goes with it, and vote any legislation down that attempts to enact "Shall Issue". If the state loses in court, "Shall Issue" will still not be implemented because they have other means by which they can drag their feet and stall implementation.

Even if it goes to the Supreme Court, the chances of getting "Shall Issue" will still be far off, if it occurs at all. Who are you going to arrest ? Who will be fined ? Sure you can sue, but how long will it take ? Then of course there are the appeals.

Nordyke is an isolated case of perseverance, but how many people can afford the time and money to go the distance like the Nordyke's did ?

I'm glad that people are fighting the good fight. Perhaps my grandkids will see the day when they will have "Shall Issue". But as things stand now, there is no way "Shall Issue" will be a reality in California. We have way too many sheep, too many wolves, and not enough sheepdogs.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 7:19 AM
Bottom line to all here, I don't see "Shall Issue" happening in California anytime soon because a majority of California law enforcement, and the legislators will not let it happen.

In other words, rank and file cops and their handlers will be brought in to testify in front of the senate and assembly, and they will paint a horrific picture of the old "blood in the streets" scenario, which of course will be opposed by our side. But the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS will ignore the pro-gun rebuttal, and all of the historical evidence that goes with it, and vote any legislation down that attempts to enact "Shall Issue". If the state loses in court, "Shall Issue" will still not be implemented because they have other means by which they can drag their feet and stall implementation.

Even if it goes to the Supreme Court, the chances of getting "Shall Issue" will still be far off, if it occurs at all. Who are you going to arrest ? Who will be fined ? Sure you can sue, but how long will it take ? Then of course there are the appeals.

Nordyke is an isolated case of perseverance, but how many people can afford the time and money to go the distance like the Nordyke's did ?

I'm glad that people are fighting the good fight. Perhaps my grandkids will see the day when they will have "Shall Issue". But as things stand now, there is no way "Shall Issue" will be a reality in California. We have way too many sheep, too many wolves, and not enough sheepdogs.

You do realize that a super majority of CA Sheriffs issue don't you?

The Shadow
12-07-2012, 7:20 AM
You do realize that a super majority of CA Sheriffs issue don't you?

I can think of a few Sheriffs that I can count on one hand. I'd hardly call that a supermajority. And then there are those that make up their own rules before they issue, that's almost as bad.

Rereading your post, you're propbably right. But to who, is the real question. You know, like Baca only issuing to celebs and contributors.

ZNinerFan
12-07-2012, 7:30 AM
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying the State law was good. Only what I thought was being argued.

When it comes to constitutional rights they should never be left to the discretion of any individual when it comes to their exercise. Otherwise we would be back to the old taxes on voting.

zhyla
12-07-2012, 7:33 AM
I get why "the right people" are butthurt over Peruta and I get why other people are butthurt over "the right people" disparaging people on our side. What I don't get is why anybody thinks it's a good idea to vent all of this on a hugely public forum. It doesn't exactly increase my optimism about CGF's efforts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm behind you guys 100% (er... at least with the spare change I throw you now and then) but all the internet infighting seems counter-productive to me.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 7:35 AM
I get why "the right people" are butthurt over Peruta and I get why other people are butthurt over "the right people" disparaging people on our side. What I don't get is why anybody thinks it's a good idea to vent all of this on a hugely public forum. It doesn't exactly increase my optimism about CGF's efforts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm behind you guys 100% (er... at least with the spare change I throw you now and then) but all the internet infighting seems counter-productive to me.

All other gun rights groups do the same thing. Its called competition. Michel and assoc. do the same kind of bantering right back at CGF.

It really is about the fame and money for some.

The Shadow
12-07-2012, 7:41 AM
BTW ZNinerFan, do you have "Shall Issue" in Stanislaus county yet ? The Sheriff and his challenger talked big about it, and I believe the Madison Society was even doing their bit to get "Shall Issue", but I still don't see it there.

chris
12-07-2012, 7:54 AM
You do realize that a super majority of CA Sheriffs issue don't you?

the one here in OC sure as hell does'nt.

ZNinerFan
12-07-2012, 7:54 AM
It is defacto shall issue but I don't believe they are 100% in compliance. I have plenty of freinds who have theirs. I am waiting on getting my S&W sheild and then applying myself as I have heard it is a pain to add more guns to the permit.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 8:02 AM
the one here in OC sure as hell does'nt.

Isn't that a problem that the local constituency needs to rectify? Current state law allows these practices. The residents of that county need to vote him out.

If you can't, then the majority of the people in your county like his practices:shrug:

speedrrracer
12-07-2012, 8:19 AM
From a seriously distant perspective of the average Joe, the NRA needs to have it's nose tweaked on this, and I'm glad Gene did it. I would have gone much further.

From the perspective of those of us suffering under inane CA laws, we look around, and we see CGF:

1) Giving leadership to average Joes like me -- hey, here's what you can do locally to help the fight.
2) We have CGF lawyers and peeps like Gene et al giving advice and helping CA shooters all while filing suits against unconstitutional CA laws (and oh yeah, trying to pay their mortgages).

Then we have the NRA. Tens of millions of dollars to throw around. I look around, and what do I see them doing:

1) Inane spam and snail mail which spews crap that panders to the lowest common denominator. Anyone on the fence about the 2A issue would read their garbage and IMMEDIATELY assume all gun owners are Timothy McVeigh.
2) Trying to grab credit earned by others and discredit those who have accomplished great things. (Already addressed in the other thread)
3) Wasting money and time with egregious mistakes, when Californians have no patience left, having dealt with so much crap for so long. (Again, already addressed in the other thread)

Gene, who actually does real work and gets real results for Californians, has every right to be frustrated with the NRA, and if he needs some NRA scalps on his wall to blow off some steam then we should all volunteer to sharpen his hatchets. The NRA has confused political pandering with actual work, and now seems to believe themselves above things like results.

ironpete
12-07-2012, 8:47 AM
Important to differentiate facts from feeling.

Hutchens does issue.

It isn't easy or fun. It is a total pain and expensive. Your approval is subject to many things including evaluation of, "Good Cause". Many have quit, let expire, not bothered or given in to suggested blackmail (you don't really want a denial on your record do you?). It is exactly the way she wants it.

Anyway, never say never. She would easily counter your statement with a record of all the permits she has issued over her tenure and say that she is correctly following state guidelines.

Along the lines of Peruta you can either change sheriff or change the rules. Pick which you will fight but don't waste energy by lamely whining with statements devoid of truth.

-Pete

the one here in OC sure as hell does'nt.

IVC
12-07-2012, 9:17 AM
Bottom line to all here, I don't see "Shall Issue" happening in California anytime soon because a majority of California law enforcement, and the legislators will not let it happen.

Defining "good cause = self protection" and "good moral character = clean record" achieves the goal of "shall issue," while keeping the legislators happy that it's still called "may issue."

POLICESTATE
12-07-2012, 9:37 AM
From a seriously distant perspective of the average Joe, the NRA needs to have it's nose tweaked on this, and I'm glad Gene did it. I would have gone much further.

From the perspective of those of us suffering under inane CA laws, we look around, and we see CGF:

1) Giving leadership to average Joes like me -- hey, here's what you can do locally to help the fight.
2) We have CGF lawyers like Gene et al giving advice and helping CA shooters all while filing suits against unconstitutional CA laws (and oh yeah, trying to pay their mortgages).

Then we have the NRA. Tens of millions of dollars to throw around. I look around, and what do I see them doing:

1) Inane spam and snail mail which spews crap that panders to the lowest common denominator. Anyone on the fence about the 2A issue would read their garbage and IMMEDIATELY assume all gun owners are Timothy McVeigh.
2) Trying to grab credit earned by others and discredit those who have accomplished great things. (Already addressed in the other thread)
3) Wasting money and time with egregious mistakes, when Californians have no patience left, having dealt with so much crap for so long. (Again, already addressed in the other thread)

Gene, who actually does real work and gets real results for Californians, has every right to be frustrated with the NRA, and if he needs some NRA scalps on his wall to blow off some steam then we should all volunteer to sharpen his hatchets. The NRA has confused political pandering with actual work, and now seems to believe themselves above things like results.

QFT.

If we had relied solely on the NRA and their lawyer in McDonald vs Chicago I don't think we would have had the outcome we did with Mr. Gura's arguments.

IMO, I think the NRA has given up too much over the years. I also think they should change their approach from mainly supporting hunters and sportsmen to also supporting the civil right of self defense as such as well as the right to keep and bear arms being a fundamental civil right. An inalienable right.

I think some of their programs are great, their shooting programs, firearms safety education, etc, but the basic public image is of a good old white men's club more or less, it could be so much more. It SHOULD be so much more.

The Shadow
12-07-2012, 9:38 AM
Defining "good cause = self protection" and "good moral character = clean record" achieves the goal of "shall issue," while keeping the legislators happy that it's still called "may issue."

Theoretically, that's true. But in practice, in the State of California, not so much.

Just wondering, what is Alan Gura doing in California right now ?

POLICESTATE
12-07-2012, 9:53 AM
Defining "good cause = self protection" and "good moral character = clean record" achieves the goal of "shall issue," while keeping the legislators happy that it's still called "may issue."

I don't believe we should even require a good cause.

"Good moral character" is also such a subjective thing. I think as long as you can legally possess a firearm then you satisfy the requirement. The law should be re-written.

Shall Issue
No cause required
If you are under no restriction from possessing firearms then you're GTG
I'm okay with shooting course and shooting test, but no higher requirement than the LEOs get.

And now I shall wake up because we will never have this in California, at least in my lifetime.

tcrpe
12-07-2012, 10:00 AM
From a seriously distant perspective of the average Joe, the NRA needs to have it's nose tweaked on this, and I'm glad Gene did it. I would have gone much further.

From the perspective of those of us suffering under inane CA laws, we look around, and we see CGF:

1) Giving leadership to average Joes like me -- hey, here's what you can do locally to help the fight.
2) We have CGF lawyers like Gene et al giving advice and helping CA shooters all while filing suits against unconstitutional CA laws (and oh yeah, trying to pay their mortgages).

Then we have the NRA. Tens of millions of dollars to throw around. I look around, and what do I see them doing:

1) Inane spam and snail mail which spews crap that panders to the lowest common denominator. Anyone on the fence about the 2A issue would read their garbage and IMMEDIATELY assume all gun owners are Timothy McVeigh.
2) Trying to grab credit earned by others and discredit those who have accomplished great things. (Already addressed in the other thread)
3) Wasting money and time with egregious mistakes, when Californians have no patience left, having dealt with so much crap for so long. (Again, already addressed in the other thread)

Gene, who actually does real work and gets real results for Californians, has every right to be frustrated with the NRA, and if he needs some NRA scalps on his wall to blow off some steam then we should all volunteer to sharpen his hatchets. The NRA has confused political pandering with actual work, and now seems to believe themselves above things like results.

Looks like a turf war to me. Crap, it always gets down to that.

POLICESTATE
12-07-2012, 10:32 AM
Looks like a turf war to me. Crap, it always gets down to that.

I think it may run a little deeper than that. In some ways the NRA's position of being preeminent for firearms rights in America (not to mention the individual states) reminds me a little bit of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

wash
12-07-2012, 11:05 AM
It's interesting talking about which side you are on.

Are you on the side that wants to win or the side that keeps screwing things up for us?

There would be no issue of sides if the NRA was actually good at litigation (in terms of choosing the right cases, not in throwing really good attorneys at bad cases).

Chuck seems like an OK lawyer to me despite his connection to "Nooch" Truantich but NRA is pulling the strings and it sure seems like their strategy is to beat SAF to the punch or screw up their cases in the process. Since the direction is coming from someone sitting pretty in a state with decent gun laws, they don't really care which way things go for us.

The problem is sides and the "side" I'm on isn't the one that created these sides.

Maestro Pistolero
12-07-2012, 11:05 AM
I don't believe we should even require a good cause.Agreed. Once the Heller court effectively detached the militia clause and identified a range of purposes for the right, any lawful purpose whatsoever should be sufficient. There could even be lawful purposes emerge for the first time, and they would covered, because it is the keeping and bearing of objects, and the objects themselves, not a purpose for them which the amendment protects. We would never be required to announce a purpose for any other individual, fundamental right before being granted permission to exercise it.

Kestryll
12-07-2012, 11:27 AM
The problem is sides and the "side" I'm on isn't the one that created these sides.

The funny thing about 'sides' is that they are a recent problem.

In speaking with people who have been fighting this fight for between 2 and 4 decades I hear constantly that there never used to be such major division and angst among 2A supporters and/or organizations.
The concept of 'sides', tearing down the other guy and branding someone who is doing something different than you as 'the enemy' is a new problem in the last 5-7 years or so.

There is a major difference between healthy competition that makes better men out of all involved and destructive competition that requires the death of all other persons or ideas in order to feel that victory has been won.
California 2A politics and activism have devolved in to the latter and some are not only okay with it they are happy about it.
And I don't just mean Sarah Brady.

It all comes down to egos, personalities, power, 'fame' and money.
People can not control the first two and want the last three and that is a damaging combination no matter who's 'side' it on.

Glock22Fan
12-07-2012, 11:31 AM
You do realize that a super majority of CA Sheriffs issue don't you?

They tend to be the sheriffs in the low population areas. The vast majority of us are not able to take advantage of that. Just consider, the population of S.F. and the Bay area, plus San Diego, plus Los Angeles and you are already probably up to over half the population of California (I'm guessing).

I'd say, rather, a super majority of the population are not in areas where issue is likely, which to me trumps your statement hands down.

POLICESTATE
12-07-2012, 11:35 AM
First they came for the machine guns
But I didn't stand up because I didn't have a machine gun

Then they came for the sound suppressors
But I didn't stand up because I didn't have a sound suppressor

Then they came for the short-barreled rifles and shotguns
But I didn't stand up because I didn't have a short-barreled rifle or shotgun

Then they came for the so-called assault rifles
But I didn't stand up because I didn't have a so-called assault rifle

Then they came for the shoulder things that go up
But I didn't stand up because I didn't have a shoulder thing that goes up

Then they came for pistols and revolvers that are unsafe
But I didn't stand up because I didn't have a pistol or revolver that was unsafe

Then they came for the repeating rifles and pistols
But I didn't stand up because by that point I had sold mine to feed my family after the economy crashed

Then they came for the muzzleloaders
And there was no one left to stand up for me

tcrpe
12-07-2012, 12:04 PM
I guess any time large sums of money are moving, there are gonna be turf wars.

Human nature includes greed and lust for power.

IVC
12-07-2012, 12:19 PM
I don't believe we should even require a good cause.

Agreed, but you have to put it into context of the assertion The Shadow was making that legislators will try to close it as a "loophole".

There are two potential good outcomes: (1) good cause/good moral character are stricken as unconstitutional; (2) they both stay, but are defined objectively and trivially as "self defense" and "not prohibited."

Outcome (1) is what we would ultimately want, as it would preclude legislators from revisiting the issue. However, outcome (2) is not bad either, since it works within the existing framework, but achieves essentially the same goal.

Further, outcome (2) is not only good as a starting point, but it also prevents "stirring of the hornets nest" by keeping Feinstein's pet gun control talking point intact, thus being unlikely to trigger any serious discussion or action in Sacramento. Even if legislators wanted to act upon it, they would at that time already have their "local LEO knows best." Also, it is very hard to define "morality" and "good cause" in a way that is clean, yet bypasses a ruling of type (2).

hornswaggled
12-07-2012, 12:21 PM
I support CGF. They are the powerhouse for CA gun rights. I don't see the NRA or any other law offices saying, "Get arrested for a bullet button? Hit us up!" They do CA gun laws exclusively and have a plan. Sorry, but other bodies should defer to CGF when the cases are here.

wildhawker
12-07-2012, 12:30 PM
Kes, the people you've been listening to are the reason we're here. If losing works for you, please take their advice. You definitely seem to have a knack for hitching your wagon to, erm, those who don't know how to win.

hawk1
12-07-2012, 12:36 PM
Kes, the people you've been listening to are the reason we're here. If losing works for you, please take their advice. You definitely seem to have a knack for hitching your wagon to, erm, those who don't know how to win.

Wow, to be that bitter and rude, maybe you shouldn't use his resources and just move on?...:confused:

wildhawker
12-07-2012, 12:48 PM
Wow, to be that bitter and rude, maybe you shouldn't use his resources and just move on?...:confused:

Do you mean the community's bulletin board or the web property that I and others invested in and helped develop into what it is?

If he wants me to not use CGN he can always, you know, deny me access.

-Brandon

POLICESTATE
12-07-2012, 1:01 PM
Well let's not all turn on each other. I think we all agree the NRA isn't doing much about California and to some extent I can't blame them. From there point of view California is a lost cause, legislatively speaking . Would be nice if they helped with legal challenges though, but they strike me as a "my way or the highway" kind of bunch.

Regardless, we have enough enemies in the gun-grabber and anti-liberty crowds as it is, we certainly don't need to break into factions at this point, that's exactly what the Brady Bunch, LCAV, and the lunatics in Sacramento would love to see happen.

hawk1
12-07-2012, 1:02 PM
Do you mean the community's bulletin board or the web property that I and others invested in and helped develop into what it is?

If he wants me to not use CGN he can always, you know, deny me access.

-Brandon

So you're claiming part ownership or was some interest given to you?
I don't recall the community claiming ownership. I'm certain that admin wouldn't give away part of his company just because a group claimed ownership...

I'm surprised you haven't been banned already for attacking other members or the admin himself...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=50701
2) Political discussion is welcome, partisan bickering and insults are not.
7) Outright insults, name calling, denigrating comments and ‘baiting’ is not allowed.
omments of this nature are not allowed, if you do not like someone simply do not post in their thread. This rule applies regardless of the root cause, be it religion, orientation or something specific to the individual. This does not refer to joking, ribbing or friendly teasing; these are things friends do. Neither does this rule give anyone free rein to be obnoxious and claim it as a specific trait. This rule refers to comments and post intended solely to offend, antagonize or hurt. If a trend appears of repeatedly posting not to add to the thread but to antagonize a particular member it will result in first a warning, then time off and finally closure of the account.

wildhawker
12-07-2012, 1:21 PM
Hawk1, Google search is your friend.

M. D. Van Norman
12-07-2012, 1:47 PM
[sigh] As I’ve said before, revolutions are difficult to manage. Now, feel free to carry on with the bickering. :p

Ryan_D
12-07-2012, 1:47 PM
This issue was discussed somewhat at yesterday's oral arguments, when the Panel asked whether they should remand based on the notification issue. Other counsel stated that under statute, sheriffs are considered to be state actors for purposes of notification, so they were not seeking a remand either.

Publicly casting stones is in very poor taste.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 2:04 PM
This issue was discussed somewhat at yesterday's oral arguments, when the Panel asked whether they should remand based on the notification issue.

Did the panel specifically say "remand" in the context of the notice issue? If so, can you point me to the point in the audio where they said that?

OleCuss
12-07-2012, 2:06 PM
This thread is unnecessarily nasty.

There can be misunderstandings and differences of opinions, but if we are fighting amongst ourselves instead of fighting for our freedom - we may have a screw loose.

I personally believe that every member of the CGF board is devoted to liberty. I believe the same of SAF and of the NRA and of Chuck Michel's group. I salute them all and respect them all.

There may be reasons for differences of opinion and even hard feelings. But we're gonna have to figure out how to get past all that and come to an agreement or agreements to work together in a coordinated fashion or we are going to be in a world of hurt.

speedrrracer
12-07-2012, 2:14 PM
Did the penal specifically say "remand" in the context of the notice issue? If so, can you point me to the point in the audio where they said that?

I thought they did, too, but maybe my non-legally trained ears heard wrong or I'm just remembering incorrectly and a different word was used.

Thought it was "remand", tho...

Kestryll
12-07-2012, 2:28 PM
Kes, the people you've been listening to are the reason we're here. If losing works for you, please take their advice. You definitely seem to have a knack for hitching your wagon to, erm, those who don't know how to win.
Interesting.

You do know some of those people are the same ones that you've personally endorsed for the NRA Board of Directors, the same ones that have been here on CGN since before you ever heard of it and the same people who have been working in Sacramento and learning what works and what doesn't over the course of decades right/

Suddenly they are the 'enemy' and know so much less than you?
Wow.



If he wants me to not use CGN he can always, you know, deny me access.

-Brandon
You know the rules, keep it civil and on topic and it's all good.
If you want to post here follow the basic rules, if you don't say the word and I'll lock your account. Not delete, lock.
Like anyone else you're the one who makes the decisions I just flip the switches.




Well let's not all turn on each other.
Unfortunately this is the pattern, if you disagree, if you don't march in lockstep, if you dare to have an opinion of your own you are immediately branded as 'the enemy'.
There is no room for people who don't accept or at least acquiesce to having someone else decide your opinion for you.

Earlier this year I differed with several of my fellow CGF Directors on the CRPA and my decision not to resign when told to.
Rather than accept that we had different opinions Brandon's response via email was to SWEAR that he would get me removed from the CGF Board of Directors.
There has been no effort to do so as of yet but the emotional outburst and declaration is unfortunately the norm ad why there is so much animosity and conflict among people and organizations.




So you're claiming part ownership or was some interest given to you?
I don't recall the community claiming ownership. I'm certain that admin wouldn't give away part of his company just because a group claimed ownership...

What Brandon is claiming is two-fold.

Number one is the aspect that like any forum the growth is largely attributable to the membership and their interactions.
Like many others Brandon has made contributions to the growth of the Calguns community and like most this gives the feel of it being 'my forum'.


Number two I suspect is the feeling of being 'owed'.
About three to three and a half years ago, well before Gunpal/Gpal ever existed, I went to Ben Cannon looking for advice on how to incorporate Calguns.net as a means of protecting my personal assets.
He suggested that in addition to incorporation I also look at creating a Board of Directors. Feeling that Ben had more experience and knowledge regarding running a business then I did I agreed to test drive the BoD concept with Ben and at Ben's suggestion Brandon. I added Ivan in as well since I trust him completely.

The short version of the test BoD is this, there were three differing ideas of where to take Calguns.net from that point and being completely honest I was so used to making the decisions and not having to confer with anyone I couldn't work well in that kind of arrangement so the test BoD was dissolved.
No paperwork was ever filed and no percentage of ownership ever traded hands.

Since that time there have been at least a couple of attempts to convince or cajole me in to turning ownership of CGN over to CGF and at least one offer to buy it from Brandon's new employer SAF.



I'm surprised you haven't been banned already for attacking other members or the admin himself...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=50701
2) Political discussion is welcome, partisan bickering and insults are not.
7) Outright insults, name calling, denigrating comments and ‘baiting’ is not allowed.
omments of this nature are not allowed, if you do not like someone simply do not post in their thread. This rule applies regardless of the root cause, be it religion, orientation or something specific to the individual. This does not refer to joking, ribbing or friendly teasing; these are things friends do. Neither does this rule give anyone free rein to be obnoxious and claim it as a specific trait. This rule refers to comments and post intended solely to offend, antagonize or hurt. If a trend appears of repeatedly posting not to add to the thread but to antagonize a particular member it will result in first a warning, then time off and finally closure of the account.

I would be lying if I didn't acknowledge that I have allowed greater latitude regarding this rule to Brandon given his position as a CGF Director then I would others. In part because he does put forward good information at times and effort and in part because I try to question my own motives because I do not want my actions clouded by personal feelings.




The bottom line is simple, there is a lot of unnecessary angst, infighting and internecine warfare that does nothing good for anyone.
If we can not all learn to play together at least we should learn to play without stabbing each other.

RMP91
12-07-2012, 2:45 PM
I'll be honest, I don't know why you guys are arguing and fighting each other so needlessly.

This is exactly what the antis' want us to do so they can win: in-fighting will eventually ruin everything we've worked hard for and even shed blood towards...

We're all here for a reason, to regain rights that were taken from us via the Legislative and Judicial processes. Let's focus on that instead of bickering amongst ourselves and calling high ranking members of CGF names or claiming they are wrong...

Sometimes, I think we, ourselves are a far worse enemy to our rights than the antis...

Kestryll
12-07-2012, 2:54 PM
I'll be honest, I don't know why you guys are arguing and fighting each other so needlessly.

Got me, I've said repeatedly that it does nothing but cause strife and division among ourselves and gleeful laughter among our opponents.

But for some reason the shots, digs and insults keep coming.



Let's focus on that instead of bickering amongst ourselves and calling high ranking members of CGF names or claiming they are wrong...
That's a great idea, but it's got to apply to everyone.
And so far that's not the case.




Sometimes, I think we, ourselves are a far worse enemy to our rights than the antis...

Definitely.

aklover_91
12-07-2012, 3:45 PM
I'm more of a lurker than a poster, and I generally try to steer clear of these threads, but I've been keeping up on 'the fight' for a few years now; I really don't like the turn things have been taking.

What I saw when I first started watching, was an admittedly 'spirited' movement. That's fine. I want people to have energy in a fight this important.

What concerns me though, is in the last couple years, as soon as we started to finally take some ground, is things started to get down right nasty; publicly at that.

I am admittedly a very small player, but I follow what's what, toss a couple bucks in the hat when I can, and try to keep as many people as I can informed. I'm fighting in the few little ways I can, and I feel terrible when I see the Generals of our movement act as acidic towards each other as they have been recently.

If it makes me, and others, on our side worry this much imagine how it looks to our opposition? I'm not naive, there are going to be disagreements.

They should, though, be kept behind closed doors. How are we supposed to win if an illusion of a unified front can't even be maintained?

RMP91
12-07-2012, 3:53 PM
I'm more of a lurker than a poster, and I generally try to steer clear of these threads, but I've been keeping up on 'the fight' for a few years now; I really don't like the turn things have been taking.

What I saw when I first started watching, was an admittedly 'spirited' movement. That's fine. I want people to have energy in a fight this important.

What concerns me though, is in the last couple years, as soon as we started to finally take some ground, is things started to get down right nasty; publicly at that.

I am admittedly a very small player, but I follow what's what, toss a couple bucks in the hat when I can, and try to keep as many people as I can informed. I'm fighting in the few little ways I can, and I feel terrible when I see the Generals of our movement act as acidic towards each other as they have been recently.

If it makes me, and others, on our side worry this much imagine how it looks to our opposition? I'm not naive, there are going to be disagreements.

They should, though, be kept behind closed doors. How are we supposed to win if an illusion of a unified front can't even be maintained?

And that, right there is the problem we face within our ranks...

We need not divide, we need to unify!

Meplat
12-07-2012, 3:53 PM
They tend to be the sheriffs in the low population areas. The vast majority of us are not able to take advantage of that. Just consider, the population of S.F. and the Bay area, plus San Diego, plus Los Angeles and you are already probably up to over half the population of California (I'm guessing).

I'd say, rather, a super majority of the population are not in areas where issue is likely, which to me trumps your statement hands down.



And most of us in, less than sardine packed, CA would be just fine if thouse supermajority population centers would just fall off into the sea!:43:

Meplat
12-07-2012, 4:01 PM
Did the panel specifically say "remand" in the context of the notice issue? If so, can you point me to the point in the audio where they said that?

Yes the pannel did. and I'm not your clerk. If you wat to discuss orals listen to them!:rolleyes:

Paul S
12-07-2012, 4:10 PM
I'll be honest, I don't know why you guys are arguing and fighting each other so needlessly.

This is exactly what the antis' want us to do so they can win: in-fighting will eventually ruin everything we've worked hard for and even shed blood towards...

We're all here for a reason, to regain rights that were taken from us via the Legislative and Judicial processes. Let's focus on that instead of bickering amongst ourselves and calling high ranking members of CGF names or claiming they are wrong...

Sometimes, I think we, ourselves are a far worse enemy to our rights than the antis...

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Pogo (created by Art Kelly)

Glock22Fan
12-07-2012, 4:12 PM
And most of us in, less than sardine packed, CA would be just fine if thouse supermajority population centers would just fall off into the sea!:43:

Well, now I know, you want me to go and drown myself, and take a bunch of other urban Calguns members with me. Maybe that would make it easier for you, but I think gives a good illustration as to why we are all at loggerheads.

We grumble because some out of staters won't support California gun owners because they live in California, which they dislike, now we discover that some Californian gun owners won't support other Californian gun owners because they live in urban areas, which they dislike. Bloody insular thinking.

Color me disgusted by this attitude.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 4:18 PM
meplat, I did listen and the panel did not say "remand," which is not at all surprising since there was zero chance the panel would do that on account of 2403 / 5.1.

OleCuss
12-07-2012, 4:29 PM
Well, now I know, you want me to go and drown myself, and take a bunch of other urban Calguns members with me. Maybe that would make it easier for you, but I think gives a good illustration as to why we are all at loggerheads.

We grumble because some out of staters won't support California gun owners because they live in California, which they dislike, now we discover that some Californian gun owners won't support other Californian gun owners because they live in urban areas, which they dislike. Bloody insular thinking.

Color me disgusted by this attitude.

I don't think you should have been taking him quite that seriously. I'm pretty sure he was not seriously wishing massive death and destruction upon our urban centers.

But those who are pro-liberty need to take a page from Ronald Reagan. I think he said something like, "Speak no ill of a Republican."

I'm not proposing we make Republicans sacrosanct, but maybe our criticisms of those who are fighting the good fight should not question the moral rectitude or the motives of those who are pro-liberty. Disagreeing on tactics and strategy is likely unavoidable but needs to be minimized. People from the major groups should be meeting regularly and coordinating to the extent possible.

speedrrracer
12-07-2012, 4:43 PM
meplat, I did listen and the panel did not say "remand," which is not at all surprising since there was zero chance the panel would do that on account of 2403 / 5.1.

I will re-listen to this since I was one of those who thought they did say remand. What word did they use, and what are the legal differences?

stix213
12-07-2012, 4:51 PM
Man everyone calm down. What is done is done, this case is still in motion, etc. How about everyone continue to disagree with how things are done, don't remain silent of course, feel free to let your disagreement known as always.... but lets try to keep these disagreements more to constructive criticism. That includes the OP. People will make mistakes, including the NRA, and people being people the CGF and SAF aren't immune from making a mistake as well.

Also, everyone try not to get so bent out of shape when "your side" is the object of some criticism.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 4:53 PM
They tend to be the sheriffs in the low population areas. The vast majority of us are not able to take advantage of that. Just consider, the population of S.F. and the Bay area, plus San Diego, plus Los Angeles and you are already probably up to over half the population of California (I'm guessing).

I'd say, rather, a super majority of the population are not in areas where issue is likely, which to me trumps your statement hands down.

Please! don't take my post out of context! I replied to another poster stating that most of the LE in this state don't issue. My statement was that most LE in this state do issue by a super majority. I think it is irrelevant that those that don't are in higher populated areas.

My point being that a sheriff is a sheriff and elected by individual counties. If you put them all in one room and they voted to issue or not in this state the vote would be overwhelmingly to issue to all citizens.

Meplat
12-07-2012, 5:06 PM
I am not looking for this to be an “I told you so” post. However, Gene Hoffman is generally considered a leader on this site and his behavior was inexcusable in his recent Peruta post.

Gene…know your friends, know your enemies, know the difference. –Joel Friedman (Joel may not have made it up, but he said it the first time I heard it and it was in reference to the gun community so I credit him when I steal it.)

Oral arguments for Peruta: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010109



Will you just…

STOP!

I had hoped that when we got past orals this $#!t would go away! No luck. As one who has been a life member of the NRA for half a century I Have watched it spend so much time tripping over its own dick that it couldn’t get out of its own way! I have also seen Gene Hoffman state that; “It is never OK not to be an NRA member”.

Now, It may well be that NRA deserves accolades for charging in and cleaning up the hopeless mess that was Peruta. But I also heard their (OUR?, as I am backing both horses) council almost stutter as he backed away from the panel’s question about remand and pointed out that it was not needed because the sheriff was a state actor. In fact I heard that dirty little “R” word issue forth from the bench more than once. This case is not decided, we are not out of the woods yet!

So, Please, let us pull our skid marked BVD’s off the signal lanyard. Take all our egos and stuff um where the sun don’t shine; AND…..

S.T.F.U.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 5:11 PM
Without the NRA regardless of how people feel about their court dealings, Congress past and present would walk all over the 2A and YOUR gun rights in this country. BOTTOM LINE!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 5:13 PM
What word did they use, and what are the legal differences?

Callahan asked Gura whether the state should be a party, it was Gura who replied by launching into an explanation why there was no need to remand. Remand would mean vacating the judgment and there was not the slightest inkling in the oral argument the panel was thinking about doing that because of any failure to notify the AG. Again, no surprise. Callahan even cut Gura off during his explanation and moved on to something else. One option under 28 USC 2403 would be to invite the AG to move to intervene as a party to the appeal; O'Scannlain's comments (forgot whether in Richards or Peruta) suggest that is what the panel had in mind.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 5:18 PM
[CENTER]But I also heard their (OUR?, as I am backing both horses) council almost stutter as he backed away from the panel’s question about remand and pointed out that it was not needed because the sheriff was a state actor. In fact I heard that dirty little “R” word issue forth from the bench more than once. This case is not decided, we are not out of the woods yet!

Where did this happen in the audio? I heard the panel talking about remand for other reasons but not the AG notice. Saying listen to the audio is no answer, if you say it's there, point it out.

Meplat
12-07-2012, 5:19 PM
Well, now I know, you want me to go and drown myself, and take a bunch of other urban Calguns members with me. Maybe that would make it easier for you, but I think gives a good illustration as to why we are all at loggerheads.

We grumble because some out of staters won't support California gun owners because they live in California, which they dislike, now we discover that some Californian gun owners won't support other Californian gun owners because they live in urban areas, which they dislike. Bloody insular thinking.

Color me disgusted by this attitude.


I apologize if I offended your delicate sensibilities. How about we just float’um around the horn and attach’um to long island.

sandman21
12-07-2012, 5:21 PM
Without the NRA regardless of how people feel about their court dealings, Congress past and present would walk all over the 2A and YOUR gun rights in this country. BOTTOM LINE!

Right...............................History is wrong...................:facepalm:

taperxz
12-07-2012, 5:36 PM
Right...............................History is wrong...................:facepalm:

LOL so.... what do you attribute the rest of the country having the most liberal gun rights the country has seen since the 1800's? Fantasy world? Tell me what org. has done more in this country. NRA is made of of millions of Americans who donate money!! Money talks and your whatever walks.

gundad
12-07-2012, 5:40 PM
This is painful watching those I consider leaders argue, its almost like watching parents fight. I hope this is just a working dynamic you share and get over.
I just found some old school work from 1988 and it was a report on gun control i wrote that hightlighted all the bad things that could happen to our 2a rights. A lot of those bad things happened. I'm not that smart and not a lawyer so Im counting on those of you who are smart and are lawyers to do the right thing for our 2a rights.

Ryan_D
12-07-2012, 5:42 PM
Did the panel specifically say "remand" in the context of the notice issue? If so, can you point me to the point in the audio where they said that?

At approximately 3:30 through roughly 4:30 in the argument, Gura answeres a question from the panel regarding whether the State needed to be involved, and the issue of notification.

At 9:03 in arguments, the Court specifically asks whether or not Gura is asking for a remand (this was regarding Sheriff Prieto's policy RE: CCW policy guidelines, and the specificity or vagueness of regulations contained within the Sheriff's policy).

(Unrelated to this specific comment, but the panel did seem to be entertaining the notion that there may be a core right to self defense outside of your home or stationary property at about the 22:38 mark)

At 32:20 the Panelist mentions that lower courts have not had the opportunity to weigh in on new statutes, and specifically states "...no one wants us to send it back, what's your position?" To which the Yolo counsel replies generally about Plaintiff has included new and old statutes, and that the Court could "...affirm without sending it back." Additionally, Yolo counsel states that "...we would agree that, under CA law in a 1983 case that the Sheriff is a state actor, acting on behalf of the State, not the Counties."

Ryan_D
12-07-2012, 5:50 PM
Where did this happen in the audio? I heard the panel talking about remand for other reasons but not the AG notice. Saying listen to the audio is no answer, if you say it's there, point it out.

You are technically correct that at no point did the Panel specifically ask "Do we need to remand this because of improper notification to the state?"

Congratulations, enjoy your "gotcha" moment.

However, the context of the statements made (particularly when you include into thoughtful consideration that the 9th Circuit specifically told BOTH counsels to be prepared to discuss whether a remand might be necessary due to the issue of proper/improper notice) throughout the course of the arguments was the Panel more or less asking in not quite so many words whether the counsels felt that there might be a reason to remand, and both times they were referencing the idea of the state being present in the court to participate (and by extension, the question of notification comes into play. If the state had not been notified by either party in this particular case, I feel relatively certain that the 9th Circuit either would have post-poned argument pending notification, or remanded for the same reason). However, the point is moot since Mr. Gura did provide proper notification.

Glock22Fan
12-07-2012, 5:51 PM
Please! don't take my post out of context! I replied to another poster stating that most of the LE in this state don't issue. My statement was that most LE in this state do issue by a super majority. I think it is irrelevant that those that don't are in higher populated areas.

My point being that a sheriff is a sheriff and elected by individual counties. If you put them all in one room and they voted to issue or not in this state the vote would be overwhelmingly to issue to all citizens.

But your 80% of the sheriffs, say, represent 20% of the people.

Put all of the people in California in a room, and 80% of them would vote to not issue. It, after all, is NOT the sheriffs that vote for the stateg legislature, or we would be laughing.

OK, over simplification, using Pareto analysis (aka the 80:20 rule) but close enough to be realistic.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 5:54 PM
The first instance (3:30) was discussed a few posts back; the state could be involved as an intervening party on appeal, no remand required and no discernible reason to remand for this reason. When the panel mentioned remand it was unrelated to the AG notice. The premise of the inflammatory thread that engendered this thread was that a remand was inevitable in Peruta because of the AG notice; predictably, this did not play out at oral arguments.

Ryan_D
12-07-2012, 5:59 PM
The first instance (3:30) was discussed a few posts back; the state could be involved as an intervening party on appeal, no remand required and no discernible reason to remand for this reason. When the panel mentioned remand it was unrelated to the AG notice. The premise of the inflammatory thread that engendered this thread was that a remand was inevitable in Peruta because of the AG notice; predictably, this did not play out at oral arguments.

I'm not certain that anyone thought a Remand was inevitable in the Peruta case (maybe some did?), but rather, were concerned that it was a much stronger possibility due to the lead attorney in that case not properly following procedures. The concern, it seemed, was that because the two cases were similar enough, the Panel might decline to hear any of them, pending a remand for notification issues, thereby delaying action until proper procedures could be followed, and consolidating the two cases for purposes of expediency at a possible later date. Clearly the Panel had entertained this possibility, because they specifically asked counsel to be prepared to address the issue at orals.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 6:04 PM
Congratulations, enjoy your "gotcha" moment.

No gotcha intended, I wanted to know where they said it because I didn't hear it.

However, the context of the statements made (particularly when you include into thoughtful consideration that the 9th Circuit specifically told BOTH counsels to be prepared to discuss whether a remand might be necessary due to the issue of proper/improper notice)....

Thanks for pointing this out, what the panel actually said in its order was:

At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss the significance, if any, of the absence of the State of California in this appeal.

No mention of remand here, obviously, only participation in the appeal.

Ryan_D
12-07-2012, 6:12 PM
No gotcha intended, I wanted to know where they said it because I didn't hear it.



Thanks for pointing this out, what the panel actually said in its order was:



No mention of remand here, obviously, only participation in the appeal.

So because the Court's notice RE; state participation didn't specifically mention he word "remand" that means A.) they weren't considering it, and B.) they would have no standing to order one if they so chose?

taperxz
12-07-2012, 6:33 PM
But your 80% of the sheriffs, say, represent 20% of the people.

Put all of the people in California in a room, and 80% of them would vote to not issue. It, after all, is NOT the sheriffs that vote for the stateg legislature, or we would be laughing.

OK, over simplification, using Pareto analysis (aka the 80:20 rule) but close enough to be realistic.

Geez louise!!! I already said i was responding to another poster who said the MAJORITY OF LE DOES NOT WANT TO ISSUE. Thus my response.

How do you think the President is voted in? Its NOT the people but the electoral college. I just crack up when posters who live in forbidden counties cry the blues about not having an LTC but do nothing to convince the constituency in their county and those running for office that issuing is a good thing. ITS YOUR COUNTY! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

taperxz
12-07-2012, 6:41 PM
OH! BTW! Our Sheriff is a democrat of Hispanic decent. Also issues for the good cause statement of "self defence" AND spent most of his career as a San Francisco police officer.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 6:46 PM
So because the Court's notice RE; state participation didn't specifically mention he word "remand" that means A.) they weren't considering it, and B.) they would have no standing to order one if they so chose?

Everything suggests the panel's interest was in the state's participation in the appeal. The panel could invite the state to participate in the appeal, in either case, based on 28 USC 2403. No purpose whatsoever would be served by vacating the judgment and remanding so that the AG could be notified. In the Peruta case, notifying the AG would have been inconsistent with the plaintiff's litigation position, which was clearly articulated in a variety of briefs and other documents filed in the case.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 6:59 PM
Everything suggests the panel's interest was in the state's participation in the appeal. The panel could invite the state to participate in the appeal, in either case, based on 28 USC 2403. No purpose whatsoever would be served by vacating the judgment and remanding so that the AG could be notified. In the Peruta case, notifying the AG would have been inconsistent with the plaintiff's litigation position, which was clearly articulated in a variety of briefs and other documents filed in the case.

Yep. Plaintiff made it clear that they were not interested in challenging state law but rather Gores illegal interpretation of state law.

The Shadow
12-07-2012, 8:11 PM
[sigh] As I’ve said before, revolutions are difficult to manage. Now, feel free to carry on with the bickering. :p

Funny you should mention revolution. That's probably what it will take to get "Shall Issue" in this state. We certainly can't get the a law passed through peaceful means. Criminals get more attention and consideration than law abiding citizens.

The problem is, we're playing by their rules, and they keep changing them when it doesn't work in their favor.

Rossi357
12-07-2012, 8:28 PM
meplat, I did listen and the panel did not say "remand," which is not at all surprising since there was zero chance the panel would do that on account of 2403 / 5.1.

I don't remember which case, (not worth going back and listening to all of them) but one of the judges asked is they wanted a remand or this court to dicide the case. The lawyer said they didn't want a remad.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-08-2012, 6:05 AM
I don't remember which case, (not worth going back and listening to all of them) but one of the judges asked is they wanted a remand or this court to dicide the case. The lawyer said they didn't want a remad.

My question was about remand because of the AG notice.

geeknow
12-08-2012, 7:21 AM
So this is how they win...?

By watching US tear ourselves apart?

Wow. I didn't think it would be so simple. I guess I was wrong.

Meplat
12-08-2012, 7:55 AM
My question was about remand because of the AG notice.

I contend that remanding or “sending it back”, as the panel sometimes verbalized it, would not have even come up had it not been for lack of notice in Peruta. So you dodged a bullet (maybe) and now you are dancing in the streets shouting; “I told you so!” :facepalm::rolleyes:

chris
12-08-2012, 8:14 AM
OH! BTW! Our Sheriff is a democrat of Hispanic decent. Also issues for the good cause statement of "self defence" AND spent most of his career as a San Francisco police officer.

he must of left SFPD in digust because of the backwards thinking in San Francisco.

Maestro Pistolero
12-08-2012, 8:18 AM
I'm so freaking sick of the pissing contest here. Despite all his previous rabble rousing, in this one case, I don't believe Fabio was being inflammatory. I didn't recall any suggestion of remand due to notice issues either.

But this is the point at which we have arrived due to the unnecessary and volumous infighting: That Fabio can't even ask someone to clarify or verify a basic point of fact without being suspected and accused of playing gotcha. He may have brought that on himself, but so have we.

We are ALL responsible for the character and tone of the dialog here. Me, you, Fabio, Gray, Gene, Brandon, Kes, etc, etc.

We either engage in it or tolerate it. Either way it continues. And we look like a bunch of too-smart, testosterone-laden teenagers instead of the incredible community of civil rights activists that we are.

We get exactly the forum and community we demand, no more, no less.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-08-2012, 8:19 AM
I contend that remanding or “sending it back”, as the panel sometimes verbalized it, would not have even come up had it not been for lack of notice in Peruta. So you dodged a bullet (maybe) and now you are dancing in the streets shouting; “I told you so!” :facepalm::rolleyes:

:facepalm:

sandman21
12-08-2012, 9:53 AM
LOL so.... what do you attribute the rest of the country having the most liberal gun rights the country has seen since the 1800's? Fantasy world? Tell me what org. has done more in this country. NRA is made of of millions of Americans who donate money!! Money talks and your whatever walks.

NY, NJ, Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, DC, etc. liberal gun laws........ right
Many of the changes of state laws comes from groups within the state with no affliction with the NRA.
What has all that money done for national reciprocity? Or changed the laws in DC? The NRA has yet to fix many of the laws they help craft.
The SAF has done more to secure 2A rights than the NRA in the past 100+ years.

But this is the point at which we have arrived due to the unnecessary and volumous infighting: That Fabio can't even ask someone to clarify or verify a basic point of fact without being suspected and accused of playing gotcha. He may have brought that on himself, but so have we.
You reap what you sow, Fabio has a tendency to give vague answers, tell people to go research what he means. It should be no surprise that people are going to treat him the same

We get exactly the forum and community we demand, no more, no less.
I agree. This topic should have stayed dead but it was given new life. There are far too many ego’s and hurt feelings now to get meaningful change within the community, we are simply going to have to hope that the changes we seek happen out of this chaos, or hope that some of the ego’s shallow their pride and rise above. I am placing money on the former.

IrishPirate
12-08-2012, 10:18 AM
what interests me is the notion that someone could be issued a LTC in one county for 10 consecutive years, then move to another county, use the exact same "good cause" and be denied. That in itself seems to be an obvious constitutional deficit. Also, the fact that two people with identical records and personal history, using identical good cause statements, could have different outcomes for issuance because they live in different counties seems to create a class system among the citizenry. If it's a fundamental right of all US citizens, then it shouldn't matter what state you live in, let alone what county...

i know that's what we're trying to fight right now, but i haven't heard those points brought up yet so i figured i'd add them in case someone needed some clarification, or some ammo when debating with anti's.

IVC
12-08-2012, 10:26 AM
Everything suggests the panel's interest was in the state's participation in the appeal. The panel could invite the state to participate in the appeal, in either case, based on 28 USC 2403. No purpose whatsoever would be served by vacating the judgment and remanding so that the AG could be notified. In the Peruta case, notifying the AG would have been inconsistent with the plaintiff's litigation position, which was clearly articulated in a variety of briefs and other documents filed in the case.

Wow. A concise informative statement that could have prevented two Peruta/Richards threads and days of bickering and insults.

Quser.619
12-08-2012, 10:56 AM
I used to find the bickering a bit dis-concerning, but in truth I think the in-fighting forces us to strengthen our stances & our arguments. It's not like the other side isn't going to argue against us & if anything, a variety of different takes on our side shows just how truly big-tented our side can be overall.

Our opponents, the true opponents in the matter of restoring our natural rights march lock-step & barrel... simply put, they want all guns & individual rights to be squashed. Period.

If your delicate egos & sensibilities cannot handle someone on your side questioning your stances, beliefs or willingness to fight, then you're truly not prepared to face the opposition backed fully by the state & possibly the majority of the masses.

This is nothing less than an uphill battle that only steepens more towards the top. So put on your "big boy" pants, we've got a lot more distance to cover before the Heller 5 are no more & I guarantee that Obama isn't going to appoint anyone that sympathizes with our side.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-08-2012, 11:11 AM
Wow. A concise informative statement that could have prevented two Peruta/Richards threads and days of bickering and insults.

The first thread was not intended to be informative. The claims made in that thread by the OP and others were a total load and the criticism in this thread is well-founded.

IVC
12-08-2012, 11:26 AM
The first thread was not intended to be informative. The claims made in that thread by the OP and others were a total load and the criticism in this thread is well-founded.

Correct. It was a bait and there were two ways to handle it. Take the bait, or put an end to it by a two sentence post on Peruta's counsel position. You are way too experienced to have taken the bait accidentally. Not that I blame your choice, just pointing it out...

OleCuss
12-08-2012, 11:51 AM
I used to find the bickering a bit dis-concerning, but in truth I think the in-fighting forces us to strengthen our stances & our arguments. It's not like the other side isn't going to argue against us & if anything, a variety of different takes on our side shows just how truly big-tented our side can be overall.

Our opponents, the true opponents in the matter of restoring our natural rights march lock-step & barrel... simply put, they want all guns & individual rights to be squashed. Period.

If your delicate egos & sensibilities cannot handle someone on your side questioning your stances, beliefs or willingness to fight, then you're truly not prepared to face the opposition backed fully by the state & possibly the majority of the masses.

This is nothing less than an uphill battle that only steepens more towards the top. So put on your "big boy" pants, we've got a lot more distance to cover before the Heller 5 are no more & I guarantee that Obama isn't going to appoint anyone that sympathizes with our side.

To a degree I'd agree with you.

It is healthy to have a robust and intense argument over the facts, the law, tactics, and strategy.

It is not at all healthy to be attacking the person unless they are clearly not pro-liberty or they are considered clearly incompetent (e.g. Gorski, Birdt, and Nichols).

Attack the opinion or facts all you want. Disagree vociferously over tactics and strategy. But lay off the personal attacks - they do no one any good.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-08-2012, 12:07 PM
Correct. It was a bait and there were two ways to handle it. Take the bait, or put an end to it by a two sentence post on Peruta's counsel position. You are way too experienced to have taken the bate accidentally. Not that I blame your choice, just pointing it out...

Lame threads and claims are the reason for the Fabio persona, why would I handle it any other way? ;)

tcrpe
12-08-2012, 12:10 PM
Hard to believe the bickering continues here in public. Axe grinding?

Meplat
12-08-2012, 12:59 PM
what interests me is the notion that someone could be issued a LTC in one county for 10 consecutive years, then move to another county, use the exact same "good cause" and be denied. That in itself seems to be an obvious constitutional deficit. Also, the fact that two people with identical records and personal history, using identical good cause statements, could have different outcomes for issuance because they live in different counties seems to create a class system among the citizenry. If it's a fundamental right of all US citizens, then it shouldn't matter what state you live in, let alone what county...

i know that's what we're trying to fight right now, but i haven't heard those points brought up yet so i figured i'd add them in case someone needed some clarification, or some ammo when debating with anti's.

It is worse than that! People with the same background and cause are treated differently within the same county!

Librarian
12-08-2012, 1:18 PM
The first thread was not intended to be informative. The claims made in that thread by the OP and others were a total load and the criticism in this thread is well-founded.

Correct. It was a bait and there were two ways to handle it. Take the bait, or put an end to it by a two sentence post on Peruta's counsel position. You are way too experienced to have taken the bait accidentally. Not that I blame your choice, just pointing it out...

Lame threads and claims are the reason for the Fabio persona, why would I handle it any other way? ;)

Then let us take this as a Teachable Moment.

Remember my reference to the Imp of the Perverse? And another reference to Occasions of Sin?

Let us all resolve not to Post Bait, and if some Bait might be posted, Not To Take The Bait.

Bait either conceals a hook, or is a setup for Bad Things.

Try actually answering questions in as straightforward a manner as possible. Don't be coy, don't drag things out -- and if someone should be dragging things out, consider that as Bait, and Do Not Take The Bait.

Over time, each member develops a 'style' of expressing him or herself. Let us further resolve to ignore stylistic expression and focus instead on content.

orangeusa
12-08-2012, 1:36 PM
Didn't the OP title start the tone of this thread ? A personal statement of a member being wrong? For that, seems like bait (as Librarian and others pointed out).

I've read and re-read this thread, and not sure I learned much.

But, man, we need to team up on pro-2A rights. I believe that with the lame duck we have, it's could be percieved as an open invitation to clamp down on 2A rights. Sorry, kinda extrapolating off topic here, but I'm worried.

.

AVS
12-08-2012, 1:46 PM
Try actually answering questions in as straightforward a manner as possible. Don't be coy, don't drag things out -- and if someone should be dragging things out, consider that as Bait, and Do Not Take The Bait.

We need a "bait" smiley to go along with the dead horse and waving Gura.

IVC
12-08-2012, 1:49 PM
There are people who are masters in their field, those who are good at baiting and those who prefer both.

Time to stop master baiting.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-08-2012, 2:42 PM
Then let us take this as a Teachable Moment.

Remember my reference to the Imp of the Perverse? And another reference to Occasions of Sin?

Let us all resolve not to Post Bait, and if some Bait might be posted, Not To Take The Bait.

Bait either conceals a hook, or is a setup for Bad Things.

Try actually answering questions in as straightforward a manner as possible. Don't be coy, don't drag things out -- and if someone should be dragging things out, consider that as Bait, and Do Not Take The Bait.

Over time, each member develops a 'style' of expressing him or herself. Let us further resolve to ignore stylistic expression and focus instead on content.

Now, if this was "bait" who do you suppose the bait was for? Wasn't me, I rarely post here.

hoffmang
12-08-2012, 8:32 PM
Just wondering, what is Alan Gura doing in California right now ?
Two well known cases and a couple of more quiet items.
The funny thing about 'sides' is that they are a recent problem.
Look, lets cut through the BS a bit. When I attempted to get Chuck Michel to work with Alan Gura after Heller he told Alan that he owned California and Alan should get the expletive out. Dancing around and signing a kumbaya lie is so 2008.
The premise of the inflammatory thread that engendered this thread was that a remand was inevitable in Peruta because of the AG notice; predictably, this did not play out at oral arguments.
No, the legal/political point is that because Richards counsel followed the actual FRCP, unlike Peruta takeover counsel or Peruta original counsel, they were salvaged from an easy excuse for the court to punt all three cases. Mr. Michel and Mr. Peruta as well as the rest of California gun owners are welcome for our diligence. The "it's not part of our case" was surely lost on the panel. The panel probably missed that we'd complied in the docket to answer your question. They're response made it pretty clear that they realize they couldn't punt it on that issue since we'd complied.

What would have happened if Chuck had gotten his way and pulled ahead of Richards for oral argument separately as he wanted back at appellate docket 44 or so? Reminds me that I need to upload that so we can see who exactly was stirring the pot....

By watching US tear ourselves apart?

See, the sad thing is that some people litigating for your rights keep winning even though they have to fight both the anti-gunners and the pro-gunners. Witness Heller where NRA-ILA tried to torpedo Parker with Seegars, Hanson v. DC which was torpedoed by NRA-ILA's Heller II, and of course McDonald. How did NRA-ILA count to 5 without Thomas exactly? Hanson is particularly pernicious for we Californians. We were challenging the California Handgun Roster in the DC Circuit...

Now, if this was "bait" who do you suppose the bait was for? Wasn't me, I rarely post here.
So why do you spend so much time defending Chuck?

Look, I'm an NRA member and I want my NRA money spent wisely. I watched Chuck fly himself and about 8 staffers from his office to San Francisco for Peruta. None of them did a thing at oral argument because that was Clement and his staffer's gig. I'm sure NRA got a bill for north of $20,000.00 on top of whatever else Clement charged. Oh, but the one thing he did do is behave in an unprofessional manner to a very hard working CGF volunteer.

It's not bait. It's shame watching people waste money and time to do things shoddily.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
12-08-2012, 8:50 PM
Oh, but the one thing he did do is behave in an unprofessional manner to a very hard working CGF volunteer.

Just to add. He did it in the courtroom, unleashing a torrent of profanity, with witnesses.

GettoPhilosopher
12-08-2012, 10:57 PM
It really is about the fame and money for some.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but CGF only pays the attorneys. Gene, Brandon, Bill, etc al are not attorneys.

tankerman
12-08-2012, 11:20 PM
Waiting to hear Gene's side of the story on this to see if it is really true. If it is, Gene would acknowledge it.

Like he did when he started a thread saying the Prince 50 would be deemed illegal? :rolleyes:

GettoPhilosopher
12-08-2012, 11:30 PM
It's not bait. It's shame watching people waste money and time to do things shoddily.

-Gene


This really sums up where I'm at. I'm a diplomat at heart; I get it from my dad. I've got a counseling background. I don't want to yell, b*tch, or fight; I want to work together and WIN. And I feel no need to compare d**ks with anyone. For instance, I was the volunteer/grassroots coordinator for StopSB249. I built an amazing, cross-state volunteer network in roughly 48 hours with the help of a lot of amazing volunteers and volunteer CGF "staff". I'm proud of the part I played in helping kill SB249 (and immensely proud of all the volunteers who stepped up to the plate to make this work! You guys rock!). So understandably, I was pretty pissed when groups like GOA prematurely declared victory and claimed they had lead the charge with all the groups, blowing off the work we did (or worse, claiming to have been leading/coordinating our and everyone else's work).

But I didn't say a damn word at the time (this is the first time I've mentioned it on CGN, and I'm mentioning it solely to prove a point). Y'know why? Because I didn't need anyone to pat me on the back and say I had the biggest ****. SB249 got killed. I don't really care what percentage of that victory is mine and whether or not so and so took credit for it. It died in 2012, and I (and Brandon, and Howard, and Andrea and Frank and Jonathan and Steve and all my volunteers and everyone else) are ready and waiting to take it on if it rears its ugly head again. That's good enough for me. Maybe GOA or CRPA or NRA-ILA or CGN C3 or some other group really did do most of the work and I'm mistaken. Or maybe we all did equal parts. Or maybe they're all full of crap and StopSB249 was the only reason it didn't pass. Who knows? Who cares? (Hint: I don't)






That being said, I'm also a California gun owner, which means I'm tired of the political theater. I'm tired of the GOP claiming to be the party of gun rights when the majority of the worst gun control bills in my state were written and/or signed by Republicans (the Mulford Act? the AWB? the .50 cal ban?). I'm tired of the bickering, I'm tired of bad cases being pushed by idiots and screwing up MY rights, I'm tired of d**k measuring.

I'm tired of gun rights (a civil and individual right) getting pigeonholed into an OFWG/GOP thing (Hi guys, I'm a liberal gun rights activist and honestly it'd be nice to be able to read CGN for more than 30 seconds without someone growling about "DEM STOOPID LIBRALS!". You wouldn't like it if every third post of mine was about how christians are stupid, so "do unto others", m'kay? :)) I want to see good cases pushed well. I'm sticking with the guys who gave us Heller and McDonald, who are big tent and big picture, and who are getting things done.

Work with whoever you'd like; as I said, I really don't care, as long as you don't mess it up for the rest of us. But don't mess it up for the rest of us, and if you are and get called on it, don't get all pissed.


:oji: That was quite the "Git off mah lawn!" rant, oy! :oji:


Now will someone please answer two questions for me? 1) Who the hell is Mike Schwartz? And 2) Who blew up swearing at who?

nicki
12-09-2012, 1:36 AM
Since I was watching from overflow room, I missed the drama among our side.

I am not a lawyer, so I can only give you a personal observation of orals. Here is my take.

Paul Clements was very good, he addressed the state AG issue head on, this was a concern of mine.

I didn't think much of san Diego's council. One advantage I did have in the overflow room was that I had a small screen to watch the lawyers as they talked.

His words with lawyer talk, his body language showed he was in trouble.

Alan Gura was also very good, although I personally like Alan better, I would have to say that Paul was slightly better at orals.

The attorney for Yolo county answered with legal BS and from how I read his body language, he was in trouble.

The last attorney was the Hawaii attorney. Truthfully he wasn't good in orals, he was kind of bland and in over his head.

The attorney defending Hawaii was better at orals only because she was a BSer and lose with "facts.

The judges actually asked good questions, what actually concerned me is none of our lawyers closed with the following statements, and if I missed it, so be it.

If the core of the second amendment is self defense and it is a right to be able to have functional arms ready in cases of immediate confrontation, then a firearm must be ready to be used instinctively while under attack.

If a arm is non functional when the attack occurs, it is useless. In Heller the SCOTUS ruled that you had a right to have a functional "loaded' " gun in your home ready for immediate use in case of confrontation.

The truth is in your home you probably would have more time to access your gun than you would while carrying in public and no one on our side made this point.

No one on our side said the following: Since 1987, the number of states that issue CCW permits has gone from XX to 40, more people own guns, more people carry guns and overall gun related crime is down in spite of having one of the worse economies ever.

We can argue stats all we want, but it is self evident carry license permit holders overall are not a meance to society, if anything, they ate probably a public benefit.

The other sides arguments were all emotional at arguments and like it or not, humans respond to emotional arguments 24 x more than logical ones.

I am sorry to see the in fighting, I don't know what the fix is if any.

What I do know is Alan Gura had the guts to take on the Heller case in the first place and do what needed and should have been done decades earlier.

What I do know is Alan Gura has a commitment to the whole bill of rights.

In the long run, I think we will get carry. We might even get it with this panel in that no one may want to go en banc.

Most likely we will see another stall action, especially if the SCOTUS takes a carry case.

Nicki

ZNinerFan
12-09-2012, 3:40 AM
I found two responses from the defendants attorney's to be ironic.

San Diego - Who threw out that because they had members of the cartel running around in San Diego and having armed honest citizens added to the mix would cause a blow up in crime made no sense. If anything it highlighted the argument that a reasonable person should be armed in light of the criminal element being present.

Hawaii - The defendants attorney tried to argue that if honest citizens were armed than it would lead to criminals carrying guns and essentially cause an arms race. A bit of a head scratcher since criminals can't legally buy guns in the first place. If anything it argues the futility of gun laws and affirms what we all know. Gun control laws limit honest citizens only and make us more susceptible to being victimized in crime.

I thought the judges questions were very good in regards to the extent of RKBA and under what scrutiny we can or should extend the Heller decision beyond the home. Being as the 2A is a civil right it is hard to say that it's voracity is decreased once you pass beyond the threshold of your home. We don't do this with any other items in the BOR and we shouldn't do it with 2A. Sensitive places should be enough of a restriction to meet the requirements of government. In those cases you check in your guns, go about your business and pick them up when you are done. This should be an option for anything labeled a sensitive place in my opinion. But the reality and logistics are not very practical.

OleCuss
12-09-2012, 5:20 AM
A couple of thoughts?

1. No offense intended to anyone because I can understand how emotions can go, but if I had an attorney representing me and he/she spewed obscenities in a courtroom (and it was not immediately followed by profuse and obviously sincere apologies) I'd be firing that attorney at the earliest opportunity. If I ever hire an attorney it will be because I'm looking for professional representation and obscenities are not professional.

I wasn't there and did not see what happened so I'm not going to claim that I know with any certainty what happened or what should happen. Peruta and the NRA should be paying attention and taking any appropriate action.

2. We may be bothered by the lack of certain arguments.

But when I talk to attorneys I find it interesting that they will frequently tell me that often their presentation in court is not so much about the facts and the legal points - but about a narrative and telling a story.

This is more true when they are arguing before a jury, but it seems to also be true when they are arguing before a judge or judges.

It is sort of like when you talk to the press. You may have very valid points and superb facts on your side - and if you made a big deal out of them you'd irritate and alienate the audience. You choose the narrative and you pound it home in order to make the most effective argument or point to that particular audience.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-09-2012, 5:41 AM
So why do you spend so much time defending Chuck?

If "defending Chuck" means ridiculing bogus claims you make on calguns.net, then guilty as charged! :laugh: "Defending Chuck" used to be "DOJ plant" lol. The proof is in the pudding on the AG notice notwithstanding your peevish backpedaling and conspiracy theories. By the way, the panel probably did not miss that the district court failed to comply with 2403/5.1 in your case. In the 3 plus years that case has been pending, what did your counsel do about that? Answer: nothing.

It's not bait.

You could have fooled librarian and IVC! lol.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-09-2012, 5:48 AM
Just to add. He did it in the courtroom, unleashing a torrent of profanity, with witnesses.

Did you think he was going to be your buddy after calling him incompetent? "I'm just an innocent, hard working volunteer!" What planet are you on?! lol.

ziegenbock
12-09-2012, 6:14 AM
Since I was watching from overflow room, I missed the drama among our side.

I am not a lawyer, so I can only give you a personal observation of orals. Here is my take.

Paul Clements was very good, he addressed the state AG issue head on, this was a concern of mine.

I didn't think much of san Diego's council. One advantage I did have in the overflow room was that I had a small screen to watch the lawyers as they talked.

His words with lawyer talk, his body language showed he was in trouble.

Alan Gura was also very good, although I personally like Alan better, I would have to say that Paul was slightly better at orals.

The attorney for Yolo county answered with legal BS and from how I read his body language, he was in trouble.

The last attorney was the Hawaii attorney. Truthfully he wasn't good in orals, he was kind of bland and in over his head.

The attorney defending Hawaii was better at orals only because she was a BSer and lose with "facts.

The judges actually asked good questions, what actually concerned me is none of our lawyers closed with the following statements, and if I missed it, so be it.

If the core of the second amendment is self defense and it is a right to be able to have functional arms ready in cases of immediate confrontation, then a firearm must be ready to be used instinctively while under attack.

If a arm is non functional when the attack occurs, it is useless. In Heller the SCOTUS ruled that you had a right to have a functional "loaded' " gun in your home ready for immediate use in case of confrontation.

The truth is in your home you probably would have more time to access your gun than you would while carrying in public and no one on our side made this point.

No one on our side said the following: Since 1987, the number of states that issue CCW permits has gone from XX to 40, more people own guns, more people carry guns and overall gun related crime is down in spite of having one of the worse economies ever.

We can argue stats all we want, but it is self evident carry license permit holders overall are not a meance to society, if anything, they ate probably a public benefit.

The other sides arguments were all emotional at arguments and like it or not, humans respond to emotional arguments 24 x more than logical ones.

I am sorry to see the in fighting, I don't know what the fix is if any.

What I do know is Alan Gura had the guts to take on the Heller case in the first place and do what needed and should have been done decades earlier.

What I do know is Alan Gura has a commitment to the whole bill of rights.

In the long run, I think we will get carry. We might even get it with this panel in that no one may want to go en banc.

Most likely we will see another stall action, especially if the SCOTUS takes a carry case.

Nicki

Nicki,

Did you hear his answer when told he shot himself in the foot by the female judge? He asked if it was done with a permit..lol. Sounded like a good ol'boy, but I think he did fine.

OleCuss
12-09-2012, 6:16 AM
Wait, Gray called him incompetent? Or am I reading too much into this.

But if Gray or someone else called him incompetent (especially if it were in the courtroom) that would be a pretty significant provocation. . .

taperxz
12-09-2012, 6:21 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CGF only pays the attorneys. Gene, Brandon, Bill, etc al are not attorneys.

Where have i implied anything? My post was a general overview of groups like the NRA and some of the lawyers involved:facepalm: Saturday night fever???

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-09-2012, 6:35 AM
Wait, Gray called him incompetent?

Yes, have a look at Gray's intemperate posts in the "Activity in Richards & Peruta" thread.

press1280
12-09-2012, 6:43 AM
Since I was watching from overflow room, I missed the drama among our side.

I am not a lawyer, so I can only give you a personal observation of orals. Here is my take.

Paul Clements was very good, he addressed the state AG issue head on, this was a concern of mine.

I didn't think much of san Diego's council. One advantage I did have in the overflow room was that I had a small screen to watch the lawyers as they talked.

His words with lawyer talk, his body language showed he was in trouble.

Alan Gura was also very good, although I personally like Alan better, I would have to say that Paul was slightly better at orals.

The attorney for Yolo county answered with legal BS and from how I read his body language, he was in trouble.

The last attorney was the Hawaii attorney. Truthfully he wasn't good in orals, he was kind of bland and in over his head.

The attorney defending Hawaii was better at orals only because she was a BSer and lose with "facts.

The judges actually asked good questions, what actually concerned me is none of our lawyers closed with the following statements, and if I missed it, so be it.

If the core of the second amendment is self defense and it is a right to be able to have functional arms ready in cases of immediate confrontation, then a firearm must be ready to be used instinctively while under attack.

If a arm is non functional when the attack occurs, it is useless. In Heller the SCOTUS ruled that you had a right to have a functional "loaded' " gun in your home ready for immediate use in case of confrontation.

The truth is in your home you probably would have more time to access your gun than you would while carrying in public and no one on our side made this point.

No one on our side said the following: Since 1987, the number of states that issue CCW permits has gone from XX to 40, more people own guns, more people carry guns and overall gun related crime is down in spite of having one of the worse economies ever.

We can argue stats all we want, but it is self evident carry license permit holders overall are not a meance to society, if anything, they ate probably a public benefit.

The other sides arguments were all emotional at arguments and like it or not, humans respond to emotional arguments 24 x more than logical ones.

I am sorry to see the in fighting, I don't know what the fix is if any.

What I do know is Alan Gura had the guts to take on the Heller case in the first place and do what needed and should have been done decades earlier.

What I do know is Alan Gura has a commitment to the whole bill of rights.

In the long run, I think we will get carry. We might even get it with this panel in that no one may want to go en banc.

Most likely we will see another stall action, especially if the SCOTUS takes a carry case.

Nicki

I can only assume our side feels the time during orals is better spent NOT getting into a battle of stats, because after all the Bradys and others can always make it about 100% of the gun crimes committed involve guns. I'm sure these stats though will pop up in a future opinion(CCA or SCOTUS) pointing out that other states have gone shall-issue and none have even been close to reversing course.

tcrpe
12-09-2012, 7:29 AM
Just to add. He did it in the courtroom, unleashing a torrent of profanity, with witnesses.

Turf battle.

OleCuss
12-09-2012, 7:38 AM
Yes, have a look at Gray's intemperate posts in the "Activity in Richards & Peruta" thread.

I guess I missed some of that. I think I may also have missed where Chuck Michel read a thread on this forum in which Gray called him incompetent.

I think I may also have missed where Chuck should really care all that much what Gray thinks of him?

Edit: Note that the above sentence is not intended as a slam at Gray. I really don't see that Chuck Michel should care overly much what any of us think of him. He's got a pretty well-established firm and I'm pretty sure he didn't get there by being incompetent or by hiring the incompetent. I'm sure he messes up at times, but I'd not think that he'd find a questioning of his competence on this forum to be something to get all worked up over.

NoJoke
12-09-2012, 7:46 AM
Thread is going off topic children. :D

Just help me get my permit....OK! ;)

RileyBean
12-09-2012, 8:05 AM
Wait, wait....... is the OP trying to say there is misinformation, bad strategy, and those willing to bury other gun owners here on Calguns? Color me shocked.

taperxz
12-09-2012, 8:18 AM
End game in this world for the 2A fight.

The NRA will be damned if someone other than them will lead the charge to actually "free" a state of may issue and into shall issue. Every win they get puts confidence into their brand. The law firm of Chuck Michel and Assoc. has a job to do and is being required to win at all costs for the NRA.

Little ole CGF is getting in their way to an NRA success or lets just say "a fly in the ointment" The NRA has a huge ego and an image to protect.

Ed Peruta, the person, has every right to sue the county of San Diego for the Sheriffs illegal interpretation of state law. His case is now in the hands of the NRA and CM & assoc.

On the flip side of all this you have SAF and CGF. Its foolish to think they are not wanting to win either. Winning brings success and notoriety for both organizations.

All of this is OK! Who ever wants to lose?

At this point as just a regular ole CA gun owner its really getting to the point of, "i don't really care who gets it done".

I just want our rights restored.

For all the complainers out there who have a sheriff that does not issue, we at least had the rights before. Look at the decades and uphill battles gays have had to fight in their attempt to be able to marry. This really is a parallel right. Its also being fought in a very similar manner. All of this regardless of your opinions on the subject matters.

We just need to win, regardless of the in fighting between the all plaintiffs in these cases.

With all this BS going on, it almost leads me to believe that they are really in this for money and fame and NOT our individual rights sometimes.

Legasat
12-09-2012, 8:30 AM
Discord among the ranks does nothing for the cause. It hinders us. Can't we all just keep quiet and pretend like we're all headed in same direction until we get this done?

Discussion = good. Getting personal, mean & nasty = bad.

GettoPhilosopher
12-09-2012, 8:54 AM
Where have i implied anything? My post was a general overview of groups like the NRA and some of the lawyers involved:facepalm: Saturday night fever???

Sorry if what I quoted made it sound like I was implying something about you or your words; I wasn't. I just kept hearing different people say things like "they/people are in it for the glory and the money". Just wanted to clarify that IIRC CGF at least doesn't pay anyone but the attorneys.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program!

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Gray Peterson
12-09-2012, 9:52 AM
Wait, Gray called him incompetent? Or am I reading too much into this.

But if Gray or someone else called him incompetent (especially if it were in the courtroom) that would be a pretty significant provocation. . .

I did not call him incompetent in the court room. I did not strike up the convo in the court room with him. I was up there to thank Mr. Clement for his arguments. He saw me & started the convo.

hoffmang
12-09-2012, 12:00 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CGF only pays the attorneys. Gene, Brandon, Bill, etc al are not attorneys.
Just to be clear, CGF does only pay the attorneys but recently Brandon became a 2/3 time staffer of SAF and 1/3 of CGF. All the rest of us remain unpaid volunteers.

-Gene

Meplat
12-09-2012, 12:05 PM
How much more effective we could be if working together; bouncing our disagreements and divergent visions, and strategies off one another, rather than hurling them as darts at one another.

I fear things have gone too far for trust to return any time soon.
:(

OleCuss
12-09-2012, 12:22 PM
I did not call him incompetent in the court room. I did not strike up the convo in the court room with him. I was up there to thank Mr. Clement for his arguments. He saw me & started the convo.

Thank you for that additional clarification.

A further point, if I may?

I would not condone calling Mr. Michel "incompetent" on the forum or in most other venues. I consider that to be too likely to harm our cause and to deepen the divisions within the movement. I respect your right to hold that opinion but I'd appreciate it if you would forgo that kind of public statement. It is less divisive to say that you think he screwed up - or even to say that you think he screwed up again.

But your going out of your way to thank Mr. Clement shows that you appreciate strong representation of our liberty whether that representation is for the NRA "camp" or for the SAF/CGF "camp".

I hope we can see more of that in the future and that we can overcome some of what has happened in the past and or differences of the present.

We need the NRA and they need SAF/CGF. It would be wonderful if we could all be best buds, but I'll settle for polite cooperation.

hoffmang
12-09-2012, 12:33 PM
We need the NRA and they need SAF/CGF. It would be wonderful if we could all be best buds, but I'll settle for polite cooperation.

I want to make sure a little detail that some may read past is given some emphasis. Much of the problems come out of NRA-ILA, not NRA-CRDF (http://www.nradefensefund.org/). You'll note that NRA-CRDF and CGF and SAF worked very well together in e.g. Peterson in Denver.

-Gene

nicki
12-09-2012, 12:34 PM
I can only assume our side feels the time during orals is better spent NOT getting into a battle of stats, because after all the Bradys and others can always make it about 100% of the gun crimes committed involve guns. I'm sure these stats though will pop up in a future opinion(CCA or SCOTUS) pointing out that other states have gone shall-issue and none have even been close to reversing course.

Stats can be cooked and the courts have to be neutral. We have found that the other side has in fact done some serious cooking of the stats.

It seems that cooked facts are nothing new for the STATIST, they use them with fear to shred our rights across the board and it has been done on more than just gun rights.

Remember the national 55mph speed limit and how that the repeal of the 55 would cause carnage on our highways.

Even though the highways are safer than ever, they still chant speed kills. They must be stroking out over Texas with the new toll road that has a 85mph speed limit.

The other side keeps babbling about all the empirical evidence about how this would be dangerous to public safety and it is the same BS lie they say over and over again.

I am not suggesting our side gets into a stat based argument. There is a term that all Americans should instinctively know, especially our judges, it is called "self-evident".

The other sides so called stats can't be self evident because they are based on cooked studies using dubious means to arrive at their results.

What is self evident is that 41 states allow concealed carry for the general population, the vast majority of gun sales in recent years are primarily self defense arms such as handguns and modern sporting rifles which are mislabeled by some as assault rifles only because they have ergonomic grips and use modern materials versus wood.

As the number of states that issued ccw permits increased crime rates dropped, when the federal AW ban expired, gun sales skyrocketed and crime rates dropped.

Since President Obama got elected, gun sales, the number of ccw holders dramatically increased and in spite of the worse economy and unemployment, violent crime rates continue to fall.

What is self evident is that areas with victim disarmament laws have the highest rates of violent crimes. When critical seconds count, 911 gets you the police in 15 mins.

The average rate of ccw issuance in shall issue stats has averaged 5 percent of the general population, not everyone will exercise their right to bear arms, but the ones who have done so as a group have shown that overwhelmingly that they are so law abiding that they are even more law abiding than sworn police officers.

Objective and reasonable standards ccw permit policies are a reasonably balance between the right of self defense and public safety concerns.

The police can't protect individual citizens, that is self evident, to maintain government policies that strip people of the most effective self defense tools promotes criminal activity by making the general population safer targets.

Guess I just typed out most of my closing argument.

Nick I

speleogist
12-09-2012, 1:22 PM
From a seriously distant perspective of the average Joe, the NRA needs to have it's nose tweaked on this, and I'm glad Gene did it. I would have gone much further.

From the perspective of those of us suffering under inane CA laws, we look around, and we see CGF:

1) Giving leadership to average Joes like me -- hey, here's what you can do locally to help the fight.
2) We have CGF lawyers and peeps like Gene et al giving advice and helping CA shooters all while filing suits against unconstitutional CA laws (and oh yeah, trying to pay their mortgages).

Then we have the NRA. Tens of millions of dollars to throw around. I look around, and what do I see them doing:

1) Inane spam and snail mail which spews crap that panders to the lowest common denominator. Anyone on the fence about the 2A issue would read their garbage and IMMEDIATELY assume all gun owners are Timothy McVeigh.
2) Trying to grab credit earned by others and discredit those who have accomplished great things. (Already addressed in the other thread)
3) Wasting money and time with egregious mistakes, when Californians have no patience left, having dealt with so much crap for so long. (Again, already addressed in the other thread)

Gene, who actually does real work and gets real results for Californians, has every right to be frustrated with the NRA, and if he needs some NRA scalps on his wall to blow off some steam then we should all volunteer to sharpen his hatchets. The NRA has confused political pandering with actual work, and now seems to believe themselves above things like results.

This. Screw the NRA.

IVC
12-09-2012, 1:29 PM
Much of the problems come out of NRA-ILA, ...

Why is NRA-ILA involved in the legal cases? I would assume "Institute for Legislative Action" implies working the political angle.

kcbrown
12-09-2012, 1:35 PM
End game in this world for the 2A fight.

The NRA will be damned if someone other than them will lead the charge to actually "free" a state of may issue and into shall issue. Every win they get puts confidence into their brand. The law firm of Chuck Michel and Assoc. has a job to do and is being required to win at all costs for the NRA.


Yes, and that presents a real problem, for one of the potential costs is our very right to keep and bear arms. It won't do for NRA-ILA to "win" if, in the process, what they wind up winning is a stunted and neutered "right". Unfortunately, I can't help but think that it is entirely possible that such an outcome would be perfectly acceptable to NRA-ILA, for what would give them greater purpose than an environment in which the right to keep and bear arms must continuously be fought for?



Little ole CGF is getting in their way to an NRA success or lets just say "a fly in the ointment" The NRA has a huge ego and an image to protect.

Ed Peruta, the person, has every right to sue the county of San Diego for the Sheriffs illegal interpretation of state law. His case is now in the hands of the NRA and CM & assoc.

On the flip side of all this you have SAF and CGF. Its foolish to think they are not wanting to win either. Winning brings success and notoriety for both organizations.


That may be true as far as it goes, but I think it's important to go a little deeper than that. It's important to understand, to the degree possible, why the organizations in question want to win.

I cannot say with certainty what the base motivations for NRA-ILA are here, but the evidence appears suggestive. I do not know how much of what they do is driven by a desire to make themselves look better to others and to preserve the organization itself, versus actually securing the right to keep and bear arms. But some of the actions they've taken in the legal arena hint that securing the right to keep and bear arms may not be the primary motivator for them. It's always tough to say where that line exists, but if a case challenging a certain anti-RKBA law already exists and it appears it's being litigated competently (and one would be insane to suggest that a case spearheaded by Gura is not being litigated competently without some serious evidence to that effect), where's the upside for RKBA in interfering with it? NRA-ILA's actions (especially with respect to McDonald) tell me that their motives in the legal arena aren't pure. Others may come away with a different impression, of course.


However, with respect to CGF and SAF, the very strong impression I get is that their concern is only securing the right to keep and bear arms, and that any effort to improve their image is strictly for the purpose of making it more likely that the real goal of securing RKBA will be achieved. This is consistent with what we've seen of CGF here recently -- they've been calling a spade a spade, so to speak, a strategy that is generally not terribly good for PR (as should be evident by some of the reactions here!) but is hopefully better for the actual effort of securing the right in the end. Which is to say, CGF and SAF do not appear to exist to be popular or to maximize their own financial status or any of that, they exist to win our rights back, even if doing so means being unpopular. The sole purpose of the money and popularity, such as it is, is to support the effort to restore our right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, I've remarked before (and had Gene confirm) that CGF's purpose is to no longer be necessary. CGF is on a mission to obsolete itself by achieving its goal of securing the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, that's just my impression, and others are of course free to disagree with it. I am almost certainly not immune to bias, though I do my best to minimize it. At the end of the day, I, too, am only concerned about securing our right to keep and bear arms, and in that light, I cannot regard an organization that would take action to sabotage efforts towards that end for their own aggrandizement as one that is truly working for my best interests.


Frankly, it shouldn't be a SAF/CGF versus NRA-ILA question. The supporters of both generally want the same thing: a secure right to keep and bear arms. But it inevitably becomes such a question when one or more of those organizations places the organization itself above the mission. Neither SAF nor CGF appear to be placing the organization above the mission -- neither seem to have taken actions that would cause one to question their fidelity to the mission. I have seen questions on competence arise from time to time, but never questions of fidelity to the mission. But NRA-ILA appears to have taken actions that cast grave doubt on their fidelity to the mission, and I find that more than a little disturbing.


As to Gura versus Clement or Chuck Michel or anyone else, I will only say this: Gura has won RKBA cases for us at the Supreme Court, twice. He has not lost such a case at the Supreme Court yet (and hopefully never will). Nobody else in the RKBA arena has accomplished that to my knowledge. That makes Gura and the organizations that make use of him a logical choice for leading the charge, because he gets it done, and does so in large part because of the support of the organizations backing him. Of course, I would prefer to not have to make a choice here at all, but if NRA-ILA is going to continue to interfere with Gura's cases then that will force me to make such a choice, and that choice will not be to NRA-ILA's liking.


Ask yourself whether or not taking credit for someone else's work, and/or failing to give credit to those who did the work, is ethically sound, and whether or not it's wise to back an organization that does precisely that. Not once have I seen an NRA announcement crediting Gura for the bulk of the work (much less the win) in McDonald. Maybe I just missed it or something...


Finally, it's important to remember one thing: nobody's perfect. Everyone is going to make mistakes, even the best of us and even when we're in our element. The most important thing is to learn what we can from them. And that means, as usual, that I could be wrong about all the above. All I can do in the face of that is be willing to go where the evidence leads, and right now, that evidence leads me away from support of NRA-ILA and towards support of SAF/CGF.

OleCuss
12-09-2012, 1:35 PM
I want to make sure a little detail that some may read past is given some emphasis. Much of the problems come out of NRA-ILA, not NRA-CRDF (http://www.nradefensefund.org/). You'll note that NRA-CRDF and CGF and SAF worked very well together in e.g. Peterson in Denver.

-Gene

Good to know. Much appreciated.

wildhawker
12-09-2012, 1:38 PM
You're absolutely right. The Republican Party is fine. I'd hate for peoples' calling a spade a spade get in the way of Mr. Romney and the GOP's takeover of the California Legislature... wait...

:rolleyes:

-Brandon

p.s. What you really want is never going to happen. The only question that really remains is this: will people choose to operate in reality or continue clicking red heels together?

I would not condone calling Mr. Michel "incompetent" on the forum or in most other venues. I consider that to be too likely to harm our cause and to deepen the divisions within the movement. I respect your right to hold that opinion but I'd appreciate it if you would forgo that kind of public statement. It is less divisive to say that you think he screwed up - or even to say that you think he screwed up again.

But your going out of your way to thank Mr. Clement shows that you appreciate strong representation of our liberty whether that representation is for the NRA "camp" or for the SAF/CGF "camp".

I hope we can see more of that in the future and that we can overcome some of what has happened in the past and or differences of the present.

We need the NRA and they need SAF/CGF. It would be wonderful if we could all be best buds, but I'll settle for polite cooperation.

OleCuss
12-09-2012, 2:52 PM
You're absolutely right. The Republican Party is fine. I'd hate for peoples' calling a spade a spade get in the way of Mr. Romney and the GOP's takeover of the California Legislature... wait...

:rolleyes:

-Brandon

p.s. What you really want is never going to happen. The only question that really remains is this: will people choose to operate in reality or continue clicking red heels together?

Interesting. . .

I assume your quote is at first addressing an earlier post? I think you actually missed the point.

I'm not a Republican and I'm not asking for Republican unity at this time. I think that the Republican Party has immense problems in this state and this is unlikely to change any time soon. . . You could argue that the Republican Party structure is totally ineffective and the nearly the only reason any Republican wins in this state is solely due to the demographics in the area in which they are running and the abilities of the individual running for office.

But even so, it would be unwise to launch personal attacks on the California GOP leadership. Calling them stupid or incompetent or whatever is not likely to be productive. But if you are a Republican, pointing out the disastrous recent results and saying something like, "I appreciate the efforts of the current leadership but it is crystal clear that we need new leadership which will take us in a more productive direction" is far more likely to get you where you want to go.

I was pointing out a portion of Reagan's strategy for success.


I appreciate the fact that you believe that the kind of harmony I would like is not going to happen. Sadly, I suspect you may be right.

But those who do not try to be polite even as they point out the unproductive and flawed logic/behaviors/whatever are a part of the problem.

Let's go back to the Michel/Peterson incident. I wasn't there (turns out people would have suffered if I'd gone) so I do not know precisely what transpired. But let me operate for a moment on the assumption that Mr. Michel behaved in a grossly inappropriate manner.

Is there any way in which Mr. Michel assailing Mr. Peterson with invective would advance any of Mr. Michel's interests? Is there any way in which it will improved Mr. Peterson's opinion of Mr. Michel and those with whom Mr. Michel associates? Is there any way in which it would cause Mr. Peterson to moderate his language regarding Mr. Michel? Is there any way in which this would advance the cause of freedom?

I don't see it helping anyone or anything.

I've not gone back to check on what Gray said, either, but I think that it might be safe to assume that there was no particular benefit to anyone either. One difference in Gray's case, however? Gray cannot be construed to be leadership of, or to be speaking for, an organization or for a client. Gray has less responsibility to temper the voicing of his opinion.

There will always be problems. When possible we should try not to contribute to those problems or to create new ones.

hoffmang
12-09-2012, 3:50 PM
Why is NRA-ILA involved in the legal cases? I would assume "Institute for Legislative Action" implies working the political angle.

That's a really darn interesting question isn't it? CRPA-F and Michel and Associates get their firearms related funding from NRA-ILA.

-Gene

wildhawker
12-09-2012, 4:04 PM
Olecuss, you're completely missing my point with respect to the GOP reference. (I don't know what earlier post you're referring to but my post and point is exclusive of that one.)

Many here and elsewhere grossly overestimate the net effect of disharmony simply because humans have a bias towards the [false] security of comfort.

To restate differently the underlying function here: people are going to do what they will regardless of most other factors. That applies to the grassroots as much as it does to NRA and SAF and Charles Nichols.

Outcomes matter; so, we're going to keep doing what matters. Those who want to talk about "problems" [that aren't] on Calguns.net or wherever else may continue to do so from the comfort of their computer rooms while others actually do the work of restoring the Constitution. Some of that work, unfortunately, is dealing with problems caused by those who might claim to be similarly interested (but are not).

There's a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in these trenches and it's a certainty that a significant portion of it was spilled because of competing interests and "friendly" fire. At some point friendly fire just isn't and then you have to deal with the realities of the field.

-Brandon

OleCuss
12-09-2012, 4:38 PM
Mostly agree with the above.

You can't simply decide to alter another's approach or position. But I've managed to help people make a more productive choice many, many times.

I appreciate what I believe to be your desire not to unnecessarily exacerbate problems.

wolfwood
12-09-2012, 11:36 PM
Having met Gray Peterson, he came across as a very nice person and while I was preoccupied with other issues during this confrontation from his reaction afterwards and what I took from his personality, he did not instigate anything.

Mr. Michel could have argued the Baker case that day. I offered. I was the one that pushed hard for the PI appeal but ultimately I lack the experience to do oral arguments, Rick agreed to do them after I did some begging. We worked equally on the briefing however. We spent the last couple weeks preparing for it. Distinguishing Kalchansky, standing research, monell and practicing arguments. I think there maybe a misunderstanding as to what was argued. Standing as to a argument unrelated to the other cases was argued along with Monell. The substantive law as related to the other cases was only addressed when asked by the panel. Point is, while I personally am very happy Rick ended up arguing, as we are not taking money from our client, we lose money preparing for this. Accordingly, we were happy to let Mr. Michel argue our case. I don't get why he thought yelling at Gray was a better use of his time. Me and Rick are friends and figured let's take a shot since we've been told its us or no one. However every time we do something i is literally the first time we have ever done it. I believe in the campaign for liberty and Thursday was a memorable experience as I am relatively new to the profession, however, even as a veteran lawyer I'd think arguing on that day would have been exciting.

Next week I will mire myself in a third case the mainland does not want to get involved in. I guess its good experience, but I live in a world were the NRA does not want to do gun cases and the ACLU does not want to do first amendment cases in Hawaii (our other case). I think we are still in the 5 digits for total money spent in Baker who busts his hump teaching gun classes to raise money. We are the prevailing party in what was a very quick First amendment case we need to argue for 1988 fees now that money will end up being spent on fees for a 1983 case that needs to get done at some point. I enjoy this type of law and am happy to do it. However, our qualifications were we were the only ones that wanted to do it. I just wish half the time spent filing motions against SAF or otherwise fighting would be used to help out the islands and not just Hawaii. I don't know Mr. Michel so it would not be right of me to speculate. I have given up on the Islands getting any help from the mainland.

Crom
12-10-2012, 9:32 AM
How very amusing [and sad] this sub-forum has become. Gene's ever growing paranoia that Fabio is a Michel staffer (lol). :conehead: Brandon swearing to turn his will against Kes and remove him from the CGF board of directors. :7: Peterson insulting Michel, :26: which resulted in a courtroom curse out! :6: Wow. Just wow! :shock: I never thought I'd see such drama here. Please pass the popcorn as I continue to watch with morbid fascination! :willy_nilly:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-A3XlmYTe16w/S0OksUBfPgI/AAAAAAAAirQ/QFBe9OgSG-A/s500/internetargumentev0.jpg

Oh and to keep this post on topic, I think the OP is correct. However, I'd at least tried to resolve it on a personal basis before making such a public spectacle. :hide:

I hope everyone is having a nice December!

:party:

M. D. Van Norman
12-10-2012, 9:39 AM
Funny you should mention revolution. That’s probably what it will take to get “Shall Issue” in this state.…

And that’s exactly what is happening. Revolutions don’t have to be violent. Their changes can be effected in courtrooms. :)

wildhawker
12-10-2012, 10:15 AM
Brandon threatening to turn his will against Kes and remove him from CRPAF.

First, please cite that.

Second, Paul isn't a member of the CRPAF board; neither am I.

-Brandon

P.S. It's amusing that you're so fascinated with the 2A forum content you find distasteful that you chose to participate in and extend it.[/QUOTE]

Wrangler John
12-10-2012, 11:59 AM
This marvelous thread is a perfect example of why I always refused to work on committees. I knew that when the committee failed to produce anything beyond uniform shirts and neckties stained with various viscous fluids dripping from luncheon fare, they would ask me to bail them out. Where upon I would retreat to my private office, close the door, and knock out the policy or plan in a few hours or days. Then I would publish the deliverables with their names prominently displayed. We all won awards and accolades from the Board of Supervisors, managers, stakeholders and meeting munchkins. I merely returned to my forest office and contemplated the nature of trees.

Politics and human foibles, you gotta love 'em.

Crom
12-10-2012, 12:30 PM
I greatly enjoyed the visual aides in your post. To be honest, I didn't bother reading the text, as the many images overwhelmed my brain.

You're welcome! :D

First, please cite that.

:oops: Post edited for accuracy, CGF board not CRPAF board. ;) Here is your cite in post #59 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9872031&postcount=59)


P.S. It's amusing that you're so fascinated with the 2A forum content you find distasteful that you chose to participate in and extend it.
I'm amused that your amused. :)

Kestryll
12-10-2012, 12:53 PM
:oops: Post edited for accuracy, CGF board not CRPAF board. ;) Here is your cite in post #59 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9872031&postcount=59)

In order to be honest I have to correct myself, while this was going on amid all the insults and invectives regarding my decision not to resign from the CRPA as order to do so the impetus was CGN-C3's use of the stopSB249 flyer and putting CGN's logo on it before paying for nearly 10,000 of them that were handed out to gun stores and ranges across So Cal.

Normally I wouldn't post emails but since cite was requested by the author this was the email of Aug 6th 2012 from Brandon:

You're a liar and a thief and now you're causing harm to CGF's efforts and and gun rights generally.

I emailed everybody on the CGF board because I'm calling you out in an official capacity. This is my commitment to motion to remove you at every board meeting from here until doomsday.

You contribute nothing and now you're actually working against us.

wildhawker
12-10-2012, 1:01 PM
I did say that I would work to remove you from CGF for all of the reasons I mentioned, which are as true today as they were when I emailed you. Note that CGF != CRPA.

You, Ed Peruta, and some "gun lawyers" have something in common: all of you steal other people's work and contribute little to nothing to the bottom line.

-Brandon

P.S. Does this mean your rules here at CGN only apply when you interpret them to?

Normally I wouldn't post emails but since cite was requested by the author this was the email of Aug 6th 2012 from Brandon:

putput
12-10-2012, 1:03 PM
I for one see all of this as a good sign. When I see two dogs fighting over meat, that means that there’s meat to be had. We know that SAF found their place in history with a SCOTUS ruling on “Keep”, no thanks (at all) to the NRA and others. Now we see a fight for a place in history for “Bear”. Would it be ironic or just sad if Gorsky got those honors?

NoJoke
12-10-2012, 1:20 PM
I guess the passion being displayed here can be interpreted as a *good* thing - everyone seems to REALLY give a damn. To that, I raise my glass for a toast.

Have at it, knock yourselves out here. We'll probably get back to business in a few more days.

Kestryll
12-10-2012, 1:22 PM
I did say that I would work to remove you from CGF for all of the reasons I mentioned, which are as true today as they were when I emailed you. Note that CGF != CRPA.

You, Ed Peruta, and some "gun lawyers" have something in common: all of you steal other people's work and contribute little to nothing to the bottom line.

-Brandon

P.S. Does this mean your rules here at CGN only apply when you interpret them to?

When the author of the email asks for it as a cite it's not an issue regarding the rules.

Contributes nothing, okay so I'll be removing the advertisements, threads and all references in sig lines and posts to donating to CGF and/or the CGF Amazon program.

Since I contribute nothing by giving CGF free advertising, multiple banner ads, keeping a constant link to 'Donate to CF' at the top of each page and stickied threads pushing 'shop2A' all of that is obviously no longer needed.

Not all contributions look the same.

Think about this, despite all the insults, vulgar names, disparaging remarks, false accusations and denigrating statements you've made about CGN and me personally and how you've stated 'CGF doesn't need CGN anymore' I still have neither banned you nor removed the many links and references asking CGN members to support CGF.
I even tell people that if they can only do one, rather than contribute to CGN, send it to CGF.

So if we remove all the requests to support CGF from CGN how much will that cost CGF in income?

Will you still get paid the same amount by CGF as you are being paid now?

romadant
12-10-2012, 1:30 PM
I respect the hell out of both of you and appreciate the contributions BOTH of you have made but...

...the women in my office don't even argue this much.

Damn.

Again, thank you both but if baffles me that people determined to fight for such an important right can't find a way to at least work independently without attacking the one another (since working together seems like a lost cause).

P.S. Please don't ban me. :D

Barney Fife
12-10-2012, 1:33 PM
I respect the hell out of both of you and appreciate the contributions BOTH of you have made but...

...the women in my office don't even argue this much.

Damn.

Again, thank you both but if baffles me that people determined to fight for such an important right can't find a way to at least work independently without attacking the one another (since working together seems like a lost cause).

P.S. Please don't ban me. :D

If you read carefully, the attacks have been pretty one sided up to this point, with one side merely defending itself with what I would say is great restraint.

RMP91
12-10-2012, 1:44 PM
Please stop fighting each other!

This is starting to make me doubt that we truly have any unity in our fight to retake our rights from those who have wrongfully taken them from us...

Without unity, our cause is lost...

If we focused all of our energy that we waste on arguing with each other on this forum into actually donating money to pro-2A organizations, voting for pro-gun politicians, educating children on the safe and lawful use of firearms and taking antis to the range to help them change their views, we'd have Constitutional Carry and a repeal of the NFA/GCA/Hughes Amend. by now...

It baffles me, even to this day why we even argue on this board when we all agree on one thing: that gun control doesn't (and never will) work. We fight for our rights on a daily basis from the likes of the mass media, the public at large, and overzealous politicians and government officials who don't like our way of life and seek to completely outlaw it. If they win, they will dictate what we can and can't do, what we can and can't have, what we can and can't say...

I don't know about the rest of you, but that is not the kind of life I want to live. Arguing and fighting amongst one another will accomplish nothing, short of dividing us even further than we already seem to be.

Look, I do not mean to detract from your current discussion in any way, but I'm sick and tired of this in-fighting... I remember when I first joined CGN back in 2010, we were practically on a roll. We were winning court cases left and right, everybody was having a blast, we even managed to stop SB249 from becoming law, that's quite an accomplish considering that this is California! What happened to all that?

romadant
12-10-2012, 1:52 PM
If you read carefully, the attacks have been pretty one sided up to this point, with one side merely defending itself with what I would say is great restraint.

And I can appreciate that but the whole thing still amazes me. I understand the strong opinions and I think open debate is always a good thing - but when the debate turns into a back and forth with little or no benefit to the cause it seems extremely petty.

Sadly, I don't see it ending anytime soon.

Barney Fife
12-10-2012, 1:57 PM
I agree, but how long should one side allow itself to be used for the others benefit, while the other side, mocks, denigrates and abuses it?

To be honest the way I see it is why do YOU and others tollerate someone to come here and tear your comunity apart instead of holding them accountable for thier behaviour instead praisning them regardless of how they act because the ysay they are "on your side" on 2A issues??

As I see it one side has bent over backwards for the side that seems in every way trying to (and even admitted to here) try and destroy the other.
And now the side under attack is showing a little of the view behind the curtain that the attacker has been so coyly avoiding for over a year.

What do you propose?

taperxz
12-10-2012, 1:58 PM
I wouldn't worry about the bickering to much.

It really does all have a specific denominator. CRPA and who stayed and who left and why for all of them.

If i were KES, It would go something like this:

" You two don't seem to be getting along here very well do you? Either change your tones or something really bad will be happening shortly. Either follow the rules of personal attacks or else" LMAO!!:facepalm::shrug::lurk5::cuss:

bwiese
12-10-2012, 1:59 PM
I'm unclear on the utility of whangling whatever this battle is out further.

Bottom line, CGF had and has a good case and questioning by panel was very revelatory.

I've also stayed out of much of the hulaballoo because despite overally validity of various claims
and accusations and what Gene & others hav noted in another thread, it just turns into yapping
of a knitting circle. I myself am pretty sad that Chuck was yelling at people in (inactive) court.

Brandon does indeed have some justified concerns about efficacies, and esp with various people
staying in token slots on the CRPA 'board' because they feel 'relevant', and perchance various
financial involvements coloring such behaviors when we had some chance of imparting true change.

I gotta go count the dead hookers in my trunk and see if my taillights work.

glbtrottr
12-10-2012, 2:06 PM
I'm so confused.

Accusation about liars and thiefs? Kes, are you a liar and a thief?
Brandon: will you back it up here, or ....?

Confused as to money contributions and where they should go, considering the website imparts much needed information, yet the cases pursued by CGF are important.

Why so much hot air between Kes and Brandon?

Hmm.....

I guess better to blow it at each other than the Brady Bunch?

Kestryll
12-10-2012, 2:13 PM
esp with various people staying in token slots on the CRPA 'board' because they feel 'relevant', and perchance various financial involvements coloring such behaviors when we had some chance of imparting true change.

I and some others stayed on as CRPA Directors because we felt there was a value to the CRPA and that working from within had a chance at viable changes.

As for 'financial involvements', so far in hosting two events this year with CRPA, the Women on Target shoot an the Tactical Zombie Shoot, my 'connection' with CRPA has cost me well over $12,000.00 with no recompense. All funds that were paid out with no intent to recoup them in order to provide training and fun opportunities for the shooting community.


So to be frank, if the goal was to be 'relevant' and 'benefit financially' it would have been a lousy play.

Rather than being 'relevant', by making my own choice and not 'doing what I was told' I have have been insulted, denigrated, demeaned, had false accusations leveled against me and called damn near every name in the book.

My 'financial benefit' was losing between $12,000 and $15,000 this year helping to sponsor events that were designed to be losses monetarily.

Looking at all that maybe, just maybe, I and a few others really did feel that despite the cost making the effort was worth it and needed to be done before walking away.

live2suck
12-10-2012, 2:32 PM
I'm still going to sit on the fence and watch from above, but Kestryll has several valid points and has demonstrated a great deal of restraint (kudos).

The one other time I have seen a situation like this (nearly identical in terms of power and money) the player in Kestryll's position became tired of the bull****, and took his money and fund-raising network with him. The result, mutual destruction of both parties in a very short period of time.

I'm making a personal request that both of you please resume a quiet animosity towards each other if you can't work out your disagreements like adults - you both can still work effectively as a team like that (I've seen it done many times).

Thank you gentlemen.

OleCuss
12-10-2012, 2:33 PM
Kes:

I don't know if this helps at all, but I can understand the concept of staying in (or even joining) an organization so that one could work to change it for the better in at least some small way.

So as someone who is unwilling to be a member of the CRPA at this time, I want to say that I respect your decision to serve the community as you thought best.

It is not often that one effects major beneficial change in a dysfunctional organization, but that doesn't mean that it never happens.

FWIW

romadant
12-10-2012, 2:46 PM
The one other time I have seen a situation like this (nearly identical in terms of power and money) the player in Kestryll's position became tired of the bull****, and took his money and fund-raising network with him. The result, mutual destruction of both parties in a very short period of time.

This is my concern. There is a certain synergy between CGF and CGN that makes them them greater than the sum of their parts. I can't help but think that the dissolution of the ties between them, no matter how weak they've become, would severely damage both of them.

I love CGN for the great info and discussions.
I love CGF for what they do for our 2A rights in CA.
CGF receives a butt load of support due to CGN's support of it.
CGN also benefits from CGF because I think people appreciate their contribution to CGF's fight.

Let that fall apart and I think we might end up like a previous CA gun forum.

Meplat
12-10-2012, 3:05 PM
Please, all of you; you’re freighting the children!

Not to mention the horses!

stix213
12-10-2012, 3:09 PM
This is my concern. There is a certain synergy between CGF and CGN that makes them them greater than the sum of their parts. I can't help but think that the dissolution of the ties between them, no matter how weak they've become, would severely damage both of them.

I love CGN for the great info and discussions.
I love CGF for what they do for our 2A rights in CA.
CGF receives a butt load of support due to CGN's support of it.
CGN also benefits from CGF because I think people appreciate their contribution to CGF's fight.

Let that fall apart and I think we might end up like a previous CA gun forum.

This ^^^

People (like me) often first hear about CGF through participation in the CGN forums. Donations then come as we see on CGN the efforts CGF is doing. The CGF wiki in contrast doesn't show the play by play maneuvers, and get people excited enough to open their wallets, while seeing the action here and a hint of the chess vs checkers planning does.

People (like me as well) continue participating on the CGN forums because they think this is a place where things are actually happening that make a positive difference, in part because of actions by CGF. Because of active CGF participation, the 2A forum on CGN feels like it is ground zero for the CA pro-gun movement.

A break down between CGF and CGN would benefit neither, and hurt Californians at large more than anyone.

stitchnicklas
12-10-2012, 3:29 PM
i smell a ban hammer warming up somewhere...:7:

DRH
12-10-2012, 3:41 PM
Brandon does indeed have some justified concerns about efficacies, and esp with various people
staying in token slots on the CRPA 'board' because they feel 'relevant', and perchance various
financial involvements coloring such behaviors when we had some chance of imparting true change.

I gotta go count the dead hookers in my trunk and see if my taillights work.

So are you saying that the members that stayed in their positions at CRPA did so because of ego (relevant) and desire for profit (financial involvement)?
Could you expand more on that accusation, I would like to hear the details.

Also if you could explain how you were going to change the CRPA and how the few members that stayed on stopped your plan, I need to hear another good story, please!

romadant
12-10-2012, 3:46 PM
The CRPA is...

...well, let's just say it is in no way in a position to further our 2A rights. It's more like an Elk's Lodge for gun owners in some ways.

DRH
12-10-2012, 4:06 PM
My questions were not about the validity of the CRPA as an organization but about the accusations leveled against the board members who stayed on.

pennys dad
12-10-2012, 4:11 PM
Brandon does indeed have some justified concerns about efficacies, and esp with various people staying in token slots on the CRPA 'board' because they feel 'relevant', and perchance various
financial involvements coloring such behaviors when we had some chance of imparting true change.

I gotta go count the dead hookers in my trunk and see if my taillights work.

You had no chance of imparting true change. When Gene and Brett's appointments where not re-upped, you bailed. Instead of sticking it out and working towards the completion of the one original plan of gaining enough voting power in the CRPA board to take a 2/3rds majority, You bailed and all the rest of you bailed because your leader cried foul! That action killed the one and only real chance there was of winning that battle. Now the CRPA has closed rank and closed the hatches, reform failed because the followers of Gene bailed when it got tough.
Financial involvement, right you know this from who, your conspiracy knitting circle? Another fail!
You don't like that we stayed, well buddy I think it was short sighted that you left and the others followed, you didnt even try and fight. We had 23 votes, Gene and Brett being cut lost 2 and the all of yours leaving lost the momentum, you didnt even try and fight.

taperxz
12-10-2012, 4:15 PM
You had no chance of imparting true change. When Gene and Brett's appointments where not re-upped, you bailed. Instead of sticking it out and working towards the completion of the one original plan of gaining enough voting power in the CRPA board to take a 2/3rds majority, You bailed and all the rest of you bailed because your leader cried foul! That action killed the one and only real chance there was of winning that battle. Now the CRPA has closed rank and closed the hatches, reform failed because the followers of Gene bailed when it got tough.
Financial involvement, right you know this from who, your conspiracy knitting circle? Another fail!
You don't like that we stayed, well buddy I think it was short sighted that you left and the others followed, you didnt even try and fight. We had 23 votes, Gene and Brett being cut lost 2 and the all of yours lost the momentum, you didnt even try and fight.

Isn't CRPA even weaker now and even more ineffective? Financially hurt? More importantly even less effective in the rings of Sacramento, not to mention their is very little mention of court case support.

Tarn_Helm
12-10-2012, 4:38 PM
I don't believe we should even require a good cause.

"Good moral character" is also such a subjective thing. I think as long as you can legally possess a firearm then you satisfy the requirement. The law should be re-written.

Shall Issue
No cause required
If you are under no restriction from possessing firearms then you're GTG
I'm okay with shooting course and shooting test, but no higher requirement than the LEOs get.

And now I shall wake up because we will never have this in California, at least in my lifetime.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

And the larger purpose of the constitutionally recognized provision is "security" for "the people" in a "state" [country] that they are keeping "free"--free from individuals but also from tyrannical government ministers.

The "good cause" for "keep[ing] and bear[ing] arms" is that of preserving the "security" and freedom of the people.

Our "good cause" statement is logically implicit in, and therefore derivable from, our Second Amendment.

At any rate, I agree that publicly airing our intra-community dirty laundry on a public gun forum is bad form.

Publicly complaining about publicly made statements simply publicizes a pre-existing schism of opinion. Pointlessly.

Let's not turn this dispute into our version of the Jerry Springer Show.
:facepalm:

Kestryll
12-10-2012, 4:52 PM
Isn't CRPA even weaker now and even more ineffective?
It depends on your yardstick for 'effective'.
Member wise, a little bit, there has been a small decrease in membership although to be honest it's not clear if this is part of an 'event' or just attrition of older members.

As far as the shooting sports, CRPA is still the NRA State Affiliate and still runs the various NRA meets and Championships.

Politically?
Kind of a grey area since much of CRPA's political activity takes the form of lobbying in Sacramento.


Financially hurt?
Not really, if I recall correctly they recently were bequeathed a very large endowment in the 7 figures range.

More importantly even less effective in the rings of Sacramento,
CRPA's position there has not changed, they still have a full time lobbyist who works hand in hand with the NRA's full time lobbyist in Sacramento.
Both have a long history along with long established relationships in Sacramento so none of this has any affect on that.

not to mention their is very little mention of court case support.
Court case support isn't really a function of the CRPA, that falls under the CRPA Foundation so there really isn't an answer to that.

DRH
12-10-2012, 4:59 PM
You had no chance of imparting true change. When Gene and Brett's appointments where not re-upped, you bailed. Instead of sticking it out and working towards the completion of the one original plan of gaining enough voting power in the CRPA board to take a 2/3rds majority, You bailed and all the rest of you bailed because your leader cried foul! That action killed the one and only real chance there was of winning that battle. Now the CRPA has closed rank and closed the hatches, reform failed because the followers of Gene bailed when it got tough.
Financial involvement, right you know this from who, your conspiracy knitting circle? Another fail!
You don't like that we stayed, well buddy I think it was short sighted that you left and the others followed, you didnt even try and fight. We had 23 votes, Gene and Brett being cut lost 2 and the all of yours leaving lost the momentum, you didnt even try and fight.

Thank you for that explanation. It appears that this CRPA issue started the big rift so it is important. I need to understand which side to support as it is hard to support opposing sides. I eagerly await Bill's clarification to his accusations on the issue.

taperxz
12-10-2012, 5:01 PM
Court case support isn't really a function of the CRPA, that falls under the CRPA Foundation so there really isn't an answer to that.

Hey Paul, I would love to get more involved with whats going on no matter what initials are in front of the donation. NRA CGF CRPA SAF ect.

I do think it a joke to protect the CRPA forum (not that you are doing it) With a billion stickies and no way to reply or ask questions on YOUR forum in the CRPA thread. Why protect it and not let a little healing begin? just sayin...

I am aware of the difference of the CRPA and the foundation. ;)

pennys dad
12-10-2012, 5:17 PM
Hey Paul, I would love to get more involved with whats going on no matter what initials are in front of the donation. NRA CGF CRPA SAF ect.

I do think it a joke to protect the CRPA forum (not that you are doing it) With a billion stickies and no way to reply or ask questions on YOUR forum in the CRPA thread. Why protect it and not let a little healing begin? just sayin...

I am aware of the difference of the CRPA and the foundation. ;)

You want the CRPA to stop the sub-forum control, call the main office and complain, heck send emails and faxes and letters and complain. Make your voice known and get other voices in there as well, after all they are your state affiliate, right?

taperxz
12-10-2012, 5:22 PM
You want the CRPA to stop the sub-forum control, call the main office and complain, heck send emails and faxes and letters and complain. Make your voice known and get other voices in there as well, after all they are your state affiliate, right?

How about we just let the CRPA sub forum just continue to waste away on this site. Did you ever look to see how little people look there for information?

What ever happened to pro active Jacob?

taperxz
12-10-2012, 5:25 PM
You want the CRPA to stop the sub-forum control, call the main office and complain, heck send emails and faxes and letters and complain. Make your voice known and get other voices in there as well, after all they are your state affiliate, right?

NO! I don't believe they represent my views on the 2A as i would like. I would like them to though. I would like to see them be a more effective tool in Sacramento. Something they can't do in So Cal.

pennys dad
12-10-2012, 5:32 PM
NO! I don't believe they represent my views on the 2A as i would like. I would like them to though. I would like to see them be a more effective tool in Sacramento. Something they can't do in So Cal.

Dude, reread my post, No where did I mention or imply "representation of your 2A views"
state affiliate means: Official NRA affiliate, specific to Sports shooting competitions.

bwiese
12-10-2012, 5:33 PM
You had no chance of imparting true change. When Gene and Brett's appointments where not re-upped, you bailed.

This has already been re-rehashed. We were token kiddies to be supposedly appeased.

All I asked was One Good Thing From CRPA per year. Yep, we got a good lobbyist to replace the past damaging one. Then...?

I was horrified that when Wayne came to speak for the dinner, the Board member who ran juniors shooting had to ask Wayne for money for his juniors. It was for about ~$10K. Why wasn't that coming out of CRPA operational funds? CRPA only spends $20ishK per year on real shooting work. And operationally, a lot of money is being spent on stuff that could be contracted out, etc. It costs operationally $N dollars to raise around $1.1 dollars (I forget the exact numbers). Jeez.

The twice yearly board meetings are prearranged dances where there is no time for discussion. Almost all the stuff at the Board meetigns SHOULD BE DONE IN ADVANCE BY TELECONFERENCE. The Board meetings should be 5% formality and active structured discussion!

But until CRPA really wants to play RAW DIRTY BLOOD ON THE FLOOR POLITICS and start exhibiting PAC-like behavior - and being willing to risk dropping money in campaigns that some of the Board members may not like - it will not be politically effective beyond 'marshalling the troops'. CRPA has to remember its work product is gun rights, and not running attack politics is a failing (lobbyists lobby - PACs attack).

Remember, we don't have to even 'win' issues, we just need to be such an irritant to a subset of candidates that they find some other subject to deal with or they end up having to fight against an extra $150K in a camapaign in various reasonably contested areas - or in the primaries. I'm sure many of the old farts on the board would be horrified to drop money in a Democrat primary. I do recall some board members that didn't think Dan Lungren was too bad either.

You bailed and all the rest of you bailed because your leader cried foul!"My leader"? Gene is a friend and colleague. I see no dog leash around and I buy whiskey & steaks as good as he does. Gene and I and Brandon do differ somewhat in many areas of style and extent, though we agree that when sufficient effort has been expended it's time to do other things. A group with a weak enough board and weak enough leadership will continue to mull along as long as funds are there but not get much done.

So I do support CRPA's lobbying, CRPA-F litigation. I just am reminded of Elks Clubs at the Board meetings.
If you guys can get to the stages I've outlined, great for you. I don't see it happening.
I wish there's be more NRA drive in them but I think NRA team is just happy enough now not to be stabbed in the back anymore.

GettoPhilosopher
12-10-2012, 5:42 PM
Hey Paul, I would love to get more involved with whats going on no matter what initials are in front of the donation. NRA CGF CRPA SAF ect.

I do think it a joke to protect the CRPA forum (not that you are doing it) With a billion stickies and no way to reply or ask questions on YOUR forum in the CRPA thread. Why protect it and not let a little healing begin? just sayin...

I am aware of the difference of the CRPA and the foundation. ;)

Taperxz, if you want to get involved go hit up www.calgunsfoundation.org/volunteer

I will put you to work the first chance I have...and I don't give a crap about the drama. :)

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

taperxz
12-10-2012, 6:05 PM
Taperxz, if you want to get involved go hit up www.calgunsfoundation.org/volunteer

I will put you to work the first chance I have...and I don't give a crap about the drama. :)

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Ive been on that list for years and done a few things for Brandon. I'm waiting for the new LTC campaign.

taperxz
12-10-2012, 6:10 PM
Remember, we don't have to even 'win' issues, we just need to be such an irritant to a subset of candidates that they find some other subject to deal with or they end up having to fight against an extra $150K in a camapaign in various reasonably contested areas - or in the primaries. I'm sure many of the old farts on the board would be horrified to drop money in a Democrat primary. I do recall some board members that didn't think Dan Lungren was too bad either.



This part here is so important in regards to the effective or ineffective nature of the CRPA IMHO

DRH
12-10-2012, 6:13 PM
This has already been re-rehashed. We were token kiddies to be supposedly appeased.

All I asked was One Good Thing From CRPA per year. Yep, we got a good lobbyist to replace the past damaging one. Then...?

I was horrified that when Wayne came to speak for the dinner, the Board member who ran juniors shooting had to ask Wayne for money for his juniors. It was for about ~$10K. Why wasn't that coming out of CRPA operational funds? CRPA only spends $20ishK per year on real shooting work. And operationally, a lot of money is being spent on stuff that could be contracted out, etc. It costs operationally $N dollars to raise around $1.1 dollars (I forget the exact numbers). Jeez.

The twice yearly board meetings are prearranged dances where there is no time for discussion. Almost all the stuff at the Board meetigns SHOULD BE DONE IN ADVANCE BY TELECONFERENCE. The Board meetings should be 5% formality and active structured discussion!

But until CRPA really wants to play RAW DIRTY BLOOD ON THE FLOOR POLITICS and start exhibiting PAC-like behavior - and being willing to risk dropping money in campaigns that some of the Board members may not like - it will not be politically effective beyond 'marshalling the troops'. CRPA has to remember its work product is gun rights, and not running attack politics is a failing (lobbyists lobby - PACs attack).

Remember, we don't have to even 'win' issues, we just need to be such an irritant to a subset of candidates that they find some other subject to deal with or they end up having to fight against an extra $150K in a camapaign in various reasonably contested areas - or in the primaries. I'm sure many of the old farts on the board would be horrified to drop money in a Democrat primary. I do recall some board members that didn't think Dan Lungren was too bad either.

"My leader"? Gene is a friend and colleague. I see no dog leash around and I buy whiskey & steaks as good as he does. Gene and I and Brandon do differ somewhat in many areas of style and extent, though we agree that when sufficient effort has been expended it's time to do other things. A group with a weak enough board and weak enough leadership will continue to mull along as long as funds are there but not get much done.

So I do support CRPA's lobbying, CRPA-F litigation. I just am reminded of Elks Clubs at the Board meetings.
If you guys can get to the stages I've outlined, great for you. I don't see it happening.
I wish there's be more NRA drive in them but I think NRA team is just happy enough now not to be stabbed in the back anymore.

That is an impressive list of things wrong with the CRPA, they sure have issues. But could you expand upon your accusations where you call the morals of the board members who stayed with the CRPA into question. Surely with your articulate vocabulary and typing skills you can detail why they did it for ego and financial gain. Also please explain how they stopped your chance at reform? You seemed to ignore these details in your last post.

Lex Arma
12-10-2012, 6:28 PM
I'm not going to comment on the underlying controversy. However I do have the following observations:

1. I think the transparency demonstrated by this thread is both a strength and weakness of this new (?) Internet-based activism for gun rights. It is a strength because this openness prevents the formation of an elite that can stifle innovation. (I.e., it insures that the elites we do have are drawn from a meritocracy instead of the politically connected.) It is a weakness because our enemies are privy to our internal controversies.

2. Another virtue of the near-anarchy of this forum is that it would appear that everyone from the newest member to the "old-hands" believe they have a right to an opinion. Again, this can be both frustrating and liberating.

3. Finally, there appears to be a refreshing lack of respect for titles (Esq., Dr., CEO, etc...) when it comes to evaluating someone's arguments.

Everyone just needs to remember that when you are part of a circular firing squad composed of "friends" with everyone's weapons pointed inward you shouldn't be shooting to kill. Save the kill shots and some of that ammo for shooting the real bad guys/gals.

Nuf Said.

taperxz
12-10-2012, 6:33 PM
I'm not going to comment on the underlying controversy. However I do have the following observations:

1. I think the transparency demonstrated by this thread is both a strength and weakness of this new (?) Internet-based activism for gun rights. It is a strength because this openness prevents the formation an elite that can stifle innovation. (I.e., it insures that the elites we do have are drawn from a meritocracy instead of the politically connected.) It is a weakness because our enemies are privy to our internal controversies.

2. Another virtue of the near-anarchy of this forum is that it would appear that the everyone from the newest member to the "old-hands" believe they have a right to an opinion. Again, this can be both frustrating and liberating.

3. Finally, there appears to be a refreshing lack of respect for titles (Esq., Dr., CEO, etc...) when it comes to evaluating someone's arguments.

Everyone just needs to remember that when you are part of a circular firing squad composed of "friends" with everyone's weapons pointed inward you shouldn't be shooting to kill. Save the kill shots and some of that ammo for shooting the real bad guys/gals.

Nuf Said.

I can assure you that being a CEO means very little in this day and age. As a CEO myself i can tell you it only makes me more responsible for my daily doings and absolutely does nothing for my love life at home.:oji:

DRH
12-10-2012, 6:43 PM
Mr. Kilmer, Thank you for your observations and your legal work! I will try to remember your advice, no head shots.

However, Bill Wise has been a member here for a long time and I had always respected his post and advice. I do realize he has done alot for the cause but for him to make accusations against other member's character and then refuse (so far) to explain or back up those accusations is lame.

eaglemike
12-10-2012, 6:53 PM
Dude, reread my post, No where did I mention or imply "representation of your 2A views"
state affiliate means: Official NRA affiliate, specific to Sports shooting competitions.
If that is what they do - where do they do it? I used to be pretty active in several disciplines here in Socal - and I never saw any CRPA involvement. NONE. Never heard of any. So - what good are they? Part of the name is California, yes? Or is just certain locales, where everything can be controlled? Sincere question. After looking at the CRPA subforum (an entire page of stickies? seriously??), seeing the president's "message" back at the time of the great "you are not our king of people" happening, and subsequent events, I really see zero reason to support the CRPA. I see them as willing to take my money, but do nothing at all for most members or the shooting community as a whole - much less 2A stuff.

I support the CGF (although I'm not pleased with how some things are handled), NRA, SAF, Friends of NRA, etc - but the CRPA?

taperxz
12-10-2012, 7:02 PM
You want the CRPA to stop the sub-forum control, call the main office and complain, heck send emails and faxes and letters and complain. Make your voice known and get other voices in there as well, after all they are your state affiliate, right?

Dude, reread my post, No where did I mention or imply "representation of your 2A views"
state affiliate means: Official NRA affiliate, specific to Sports shooting competitions.

Just as a reminder for you^^^

I'm a life long Californian. You asked me if they were the state NRA affiliate. RIGHT? Are you saying that doesn't include little ole me? If thats the case then you endorsed many peoples feelings about the CRPA. Their way or the hi way regardless of who you are in this state.

I've taken many people right into my very own backyard (literally) and taught them how to shoot or hunt the right way. Thats the responsibility of all gunnies. I would like the CRPA to endorse this idea by protecting my 2A rights in this state so i can continue to do so.

bigmike82
12-10-2012, 7:17 PM
I'm the last person to brown nose, but Jesus Christ, Brandon and Bill, you guys are completely out of line. Kes, and CGN, are incredibly successful proponents of CGF and you guys are going to sit here and accuse him of being greedy, a thief and an all around scumbag?

Given your past and current efforts on behalf of gun owners, I would have expected better.

Shame on the both of you. >:(

JMP
12-10-2012, 7:39 PM
The funny thing about 'sides' is that they are a recent problem.

It all comes down to egos, personalities, power, 'fame' and money. People can not control the first two and want the last three and that is a damaging combination no matter who's 'side' it on.

Can we get rid of 'sides' on 2A when different groups should be fighting for a common goal.

This is what bothers me about non-profit organizations. When they get large enough, they are never truly non-profit. Someone always feels the need to get fat of off ego, fame, or money.

I've given to CGN as a subscription, and I have given to CGF during the SB249. To be honest, I don't give a damn if a flyer has the wrong logo as long as it is sending the right message. If you are really in it for the cause, what's the big deal? You all should be working together instead of bickering.

There's 21 days left for people to make a tax deductible contribution to any of the 501(c) groups for 2012--I think I'll hold up until I see a little more unity and collaboration.

swift
12-10-2012, 7:49 PM
Many of us have a lot of respect for Gene, Bill, Brandon and Kes. I appreciate your technical arguments and I would ask you to consider having your less objective discussion offline.

Zebra
12-10-2012, 8:08 PM
...and, without a doubt, you know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

I'm the last person to brown nose, but Jesus Christ, Brandon and Bill, you guys are completely out of line. Kes, and CGN, are incredibly successful proponents of CGF and you guys are going to sit here and accuse him of being greedy, a thief and an all around scumbag?

Given your past and current efforts on behalf of gun owners, I would have expected better.

Shame on the both of you. >:(

DRH
12-10-2012, 8:17 PM
There is a real problem here and locking the thread and hoping that it will go away is not going to solve it. The who, what and where of all this butthurting needs to be laid out for all to see and resolved for good. Scars don't heal when the knife keeps getting inserted. I would also like to see unity, and therefore I am trying to really understand the problems. Penny's dad outlined his verision of the CRPA board member issue which seems to be the start of the rift. Kestryl has posted his postition, we are still waiting for Bill Wise to explain himself on his accusations. Let the people of Calguns hear both sides and decide for themselves who has the valid issues and who just has issues.

chainsaw
12-10-2012, 8:41 PM
Counselor, while I mostly agree with your statements, allow me to challenge you on one point:

3. Finally, there appears to be a refreshing lack of respect for titles (Esq., Dr., CEO, etc...) when it comes to evaluating someone's arguments.

Unfortunately, a few people use their exalted stature when they run out of arguments. It is quite effective, if combined with sufficiently unclear writing, speaking in riddles, and dropping hints instead of stating facts.

Another common technique is to increase one's standing, by demeaning others. In the land of the blind, the one eyed an is king. So if someone has just one eye, it behoves them to exaggerate the blindness of all others and accentuate their own vision, often at the expense of honesty. Clearly, this helps unify one's own troops, but the price we pay is fratricide.

Now, with the professionals (in particular legal professionals) and intellectuals here, neither discussion technique protects one from well-reasoned counterargument and criticism. But it does impress the hoi polloi, who raise the perceived leader onto a pedestal, and consider him infallible and deserving of the highest respect (often inflating his accomplishments in the retelling). This dynamic is quite visible in many attempts at debate here, where criticism of the anointed one causes the masses to shout down the perceived attacker. Whether this is helpful (in creating cohesion and raising donations) or harmful (in preventing necessary exchange of opinions) is an interesting question.

(I know that the expression "exalted stature" is not idiomatic, but the term is more apt then "position" here.)

Zebra
12-10-2012, 8:44 PM
Gala dinner vs. getting stuff done?

I think both Paul and Bill laid out their positions many times already.

One works the other does not.

There is a real problem here and locking the thread and hoping that it will go away is not going to solve it. The who, what and where of all this butthurting needs to be laid out for all to see and resolved for good. Scars don't heal when the knife keeps getting inserted. I would also like to see unity, and therefore I am trying to really understand the problems. Penny's dad outlined his verision of the CRPA board member issue which seems to be the start of the rift. Kestryl has posted his postition, we are still waiting for Bill Wise to explain himself on his accusations. Let the people of Calguns hear both sides and decide for themselves who has the valid issues and who just has issues.

DRH
12-10-2012, 9:01 PM
Gala dinner vs. getting stuff done?

I think both Paul and Bill laid out their positions many times already.

One works the other does not.

Gala dinners, really? Bill accused the members who stayed on with the CRPA of doing so for ego and financial gain. He also accused them of stopping their one chance of succeeding at changing the CRPA. The two of the members accused have come on here and stated that they stayed on in an attempt to effect change as quiting like the other did would not have done anything. From that explanation it appears that the CGF plan had already failed before the members decided to stay on.

Unfortunately this incident seems to be the start of the rift between CGF and CGN. If you can point me to a thread where I can read about how these members that stayed on foiled CGF's plan it would be appriecated. Also any facts about Bill's moral attack on their reasoning for staying on would be appriecated. If you are implying that getting things done allows you to say whatever you want about other people whether it is true or not, I would disagree.

As for the gala dinner, it was posted that CRPA just had a member donate seven figures. Maybe the calguns foundation should start having gala dinners, lol.

Zebra
12-10-2012, 9:12 PM
Maybe they shouldn't. It would be a shame if the most powerful org for CA rights would turn into this ugly bloat that represents the current CRPA.

The rift started a while ago – search is your friend.

Oh, and I think Bill is right – it's about making a buck.

...
As for the gala dinner, it was posted that CRPA just had a member donate seven figures. Maybe the calguns foundation should start having gala dinners, lol.

thedrickel
12-10-2012, 9:26 PM
I don't think it's so bad that the anti's can watch. Most of the debate is centered around who achieves the money and glory ;)

CRPAGunner
12-10-2012, 9:44 PM
Although I have been following this thread with great interest since it started, I was not going to post anything unless CRPA was dragged into the discussion. It now appears that it has. I am not going to get personal and I am not going to air any additional 'dirty laundry.'

First off, in reference to Chuck Michel; not only is Chuck the California attorney for the NRA but he is also the attorney for the CRPA foundation. He is an extremely savvy, capable and competent attorney, especially in this area of law. The NRA is not in the habit of hiring 'light weights' or attorneys who are incompetent. Obviously, others have a different opinion. I can only judge Chuck by his results, i.e. AB962. I will not comment on any interaction Chuck may have had with Gray, since I wasn't there. But Gray has a track record of insulting and posting disparaging remarks not only about Chuck, but myself also. Personally, I could care less what anyone says about me on the Internet. I can assure you, Chuck Michel and his firm are more than pulling their weight on behalf of all California gun owners and we are lucky to have him on our side!

Paul, Jacob, Fred and Liz have added a great deal to the CRPA and are very valuable members of the Board of Directors! They have done more to reform the organization and put it on a positive trajectory than anyone will ever know and we are lucky to have their contributions and talents. I trust them completely and I can assure you that none of them are doing this because of a title or monetary gain. We are talking about people who cannot be bought and who have a high level of personal integrity.

I will continue to honor my pledge to never disparage or talk poorly about Gene, Josh, Bill or any of the other former CRPA board members who decided to leave the organization. They made their choice and why they took the action they did is at this point, of no consequence. Despite our differences, I still consider all of them extremely capable, well-intentioned individuals who have made huge contributions to all of California's gun owners. I will never take that fact away from them nor attempt to 'water it down' in any way. It would be dishonest and disingenuous to do otherwise. I can tell you a level of cooperation and communication is absolutely possible, for example; I have great admiration and respect for Alan Gottlieb. Not only is he a very polite and personable gentleman, he is also respectful of differing opinions and goals. If I had to pick one example of someone who 'gets it' when it comes to working with others who don't always agree with you, it would be Mr. Gottlieb. He is a class act and I am honored to know him.

As far as the CRPA and its future is concerned, ironically the loss of the previously mentioned board members was in retrospect, the best possible outcome for the organization as a whole. Over the last year and a half, the organization has made great strides in modernizing, being more responsive to its members, communicating with the membership and instituting programs and events throughout the state. We have done things that were unfathomable just five years ago. CRPA played a key role in the defeat of SB 249 and in no way do I say that to take away any credit from any of the other half-dozen or so organizations who all pulled together in that great victory! For a brief moment in time, we all came together as one and got the job done. I realize that some people in this thread believe that unity and working together is simply not possible. I strongly disagree. All one has to do is put aside personal ego and selfishness. The fight for our gun rights is much bigger than any one person or group of people. For the usual dozen or so if you who continue to marginalize and denigrate the CRPA, I have met thousands of CRPA members including 'cal gunners,' who are very happy with the organization and everything we have been doing over the last few years. I guess you just can't please everyone. I will admit, that much still needs to be done. Rome wasn't built in a day.

To sum up, the whole tone and tenor of this thread just absolutely sucks! Much has been revealed by all parties and lots of 'insider ugliness' has been hinted at and feelings have been hurt. This is a perfect example of why the anti-gun crowd doesn't have to do anything to destroy us; we are perfectly capable of destroying ourselves.

..........."Can't we all just get along?"

DRH
12-10-2012, 10:10 PM
Thank you for your well thought out response. I have not been a CRPA member for probably 8 years. I hope you can continue to modernize and update your organization to where I can once again send you my money and know it is making a difference. I say that in all sincerity, I do hope that CRPA is successful. Also thank you for the input on the accusations made regarding your board members that stayed on when the others quit. I found it very hard to believe the BS posted about them.

GettoPhilosopher
12-10-2012, 11:00 PM
There is a real problem here and locking the thread and hoping that it will go away is not going to solve it. The who, what and where of all this butthurting needs to be laid out for all to see and resolved for good. Scars don't heal when the knife keeps getting inserted. I would also like to see unity, and therefore I am trying to really understand the problems. Penny's dad outlined his verision of the CRPA board member issue which seems to be the start of the rift. Kestryl has posted his postition, we are still waiting for Bill Wise to explain himself on his accusations. Let the people of Calguns hear both sides and decide for themselves who has the valid issues and who just has issues.

No, it really doesn't. It's been hashed out and rehashed out and buried and dug up and re-dug up and brought up again and again.

(WARNING: Excessively Long GP Rant! If you don't want to read it, don't read it :oji: I'll post a tl;dr summary in the last line)

Half of it is a narrative: certain CGF-affiliated people started working in/with the CRPA, apparently with a plan to reform the organization; it seems some in the CRPA weren't fans and essentially fired Gene and Brett; most of the rest of the bloc quit with the apparent intention of refusing to lend legitimacy to an organization perceived as unreformed and unrepentant; some of the bloc did not quit, stating that they wanted to stay and keep trying to reform, which the rest of the bloc perceived as a sell-out; CRPA threatened to sue one of their own BoD members; CGN modified StopSB249 materials without talking to them first, and seemed surprised that StopSB249 cared; a variety of groups worked independently (or in small groups) to stop SB249, then many claimed to have been The Coordinating Org/The Successful Org/The Primary Org/something vaguely along those lines (some out of honest belief, some taking credit for other people's work); lots of people yelled (whether loudly or passive aggressively; I'm sorry, they're the same in my mind) on the internet; lots of people in all the different groups equated disagreement with moral turpitude; lots of other people looked at the yelling, ignored it, and went back to shooting or looking at pictures of cats.

The rest of it is personal issues that--as Don pointed out--unfortunately got blasted all over the internet. Brandon is laser-focused on the goal of securing our rights; the same "fighter" personality that's currently kicking sheriff's departments' @$$es all over CA bleeds over into his online interactions (he'll be the first to tell you the only thing he cares about is getting the work done). Kevin is passionate and evangelical (in the literal sense of the word), and that same passion bleeds into everything he does, sometimes excessively so (as he'll freely admit). Bill is very analytical and no-bs, which bleeds into his online interactions (god help anyone who tries to convince him a non chrome-lined, rifle-gassed 16" bbl is a legitimate and workable choice for an AR ;)). Gene is a big picture guy, and that bleeds into his online interactions. Kes is Chief Mod, and that "final say" authority bleeds into his personal online interactions. Etc, etc, etc. (I'm honest with my friends about how I see things, so this isn't a surprise to Bill/Brandon/Kevin/Gene. I don't know Kes personally, but I've been similarly honest with him on here)

I don't really have a problem with any of that (any actual concerns I've had with friends, I have brought up privately with the friends involved), but like any group of wildly varied personalities, working in close proximity has caused everyone's personalities to rub the wrong way on everyone else's. I don't think kissing and making up would do much good; better in my opinion for everyone to stop fighting and get to work. In an ideal world, everyone would do their work and what is actually effective would shine; our successes and/or failures would show who's perceptions were closer to reality, but that just breaks down into a "Who Gets The Credit" fight, so screw that.

I support CGF/SAF 100%, and work with them because they are the ones in my estimation/research/knowledge who are actually effectively expanding and protecting my legal rights and because they are the ones I see that are willing to drop everything and defend a gun owner, period. You, oh individual reader, will look at this all yourself and decide which org(s) you think deserve(s) your support. So do it, and then donate your time and/or your money to that org (whether that's CGF, CGN, SAF, NRA, NRA-ILA, CRPA, CRPAF, GOA, or whoever else).

Or we can keep rehashing the same arguments on the internet. Wah wah.

tl;dr summary: all this crap has been rehashed 100 times, everyone stfu and get back to work, I love In-N-Out, get off mah lawn :oji:

bwiese
12-11-2012, 12:29 AM
I thank Tony for participating, and I indeed wish CRPA the best of luck at getting something done. It's certainly moved beyond the past. It's also full of nice people - and that is an issue, since they don't really seem themselves as political and rely on the lobbyist.

BUT THE CRPA HAS VERY LITTLE ABILITY TO CHANGE OUTCOMES IN CA RACES EVEN IN SWING SEATS.

WHEN CRPA CAN DO THAT, IT WILL HAVE 'DONE SOMETHING.

The CRPA Lobbyist is a great (and smart) guy. But he needs some nukes in his holster - and that's some sorta PAC where money is applied to races and we make our issue offensive. There's only so much that sending out Orange Cards can do.

Every other pressure group drops money.

Those PORAC guys pay (?) ~$900/year, nurses pay their dues, etc. to be politically active. It's time gunnies start being offensive by dropping cash at the right times.

CRPA has ~$4Mil in the bank. Shouldn't some of that be used for putting political blood on the table? Even if we 'lose' in specific instances - and we would - the very presence of our introducing gun money into races, esp primaries - helps quash at least some antigun activity.

Lex Arma
12-11-2012, 4:42 AM
Counselor, while I mostly agree with your statements, allow me to challenge you on one point:



Unfortunately, a few people use their exalted stature when they run out of arguments. It is quite effective, if combined with sufficiently unclear writing, speaking in riddles, and dropping hints instead of stating facts.

Another common technique is to increase one's standing, by demeaning others. In the land of the blind, the one eyed an is king. So if someone has just one eye, it behoves them to exaggerate the blindness of all others and accentuate their own vision, often at the expense of honesty. Clearly, this helps unify one's own troops, but the price we pay is fratricide.

Now, with the professionals (in particular legal professionals) and intellectuals here, neither discussion technique protects one from well-reasoned counterargument and criticism. But it does impress the hoi polloi, who raise the perceived leader onto a pedestal, and consider him infallible and deserving of the highest respect (often inflating his accomplishments in the retelling). This dynamic is quite visible in many attempts at debate here, where criticism of the anointed one causes the masses to shout down the perceived attacker. Whether this is helpful (in creating cohesion and raising donations) or harmful (in preventing necessary exchange of opinions) is an interesting question.

(I know that the expression "exalted stature" is not idiomatic, but the term is more apt then "position" here.)

Didn't you just make my point for me? Nobody's stature is based on a title. It's based on sound logic and a history of being right (or wrong). The successful EARN their following or lose followers based on their predictive ability measured against what actually happened. Note that title (Esq., Dr., CEO, etc...) is not the same as function - i.e., site owner and moderators, who I intended to commend for providing a remarkably transparent marketplace for ideas.

ZNinerFan
12-11-2012, 5:06 AM
I thank Tony for participating, and I indeed wish CRPA the best of luck at getting something done. It's certainly moved beyond the past. It's also full of nice people - and that is an issue, since they don't really seem themselves as political and rely on the lobbyist.

BUT THE CRPA HAS VERY LITTLE ABILITY TO CHANGE OUTCOMES IN CA RACES EVEN IN SWING SEATS.

WHEN CRPA CAN DO THAT, IT WILL HAVE 'DONE SOMETHING.

The CRPA Lobbyist is a great (and smart) guy. But he needs some nukes in his holster - and that's some sorta PAC where money is applied to races and we make our issue offensive. There's only so much that sending out Orange Cards can do.

Every other pressure group drops money.

Those PORAC guys pay (?) ~$900/year, nurses pay their dues, etc. to be politically active. It's time gunnies start being offensive by dropping cash at the right times.

CRPA has ~$4Mil in the bank. Shouldn't some of that be used for putting political blood on the table? Even if we 'lose' in specific instances - and we would - the very presence of our introducing gun money into races, esp primaries - helps quash at least some antigun activity.

I gotta agree with Bill on this. If you are going to be a gun related organization in California, where our gun rights are being constantly infringed by the legislature, you need to be more proactive in the political process.

If this was a state were the RKBA was available for all of us to exercise without any impediments, then setting up gala dinners and the occasional shooting clinic would be sufficient. It would be ok to be a "hunter" and hate black rifles, as long as those who wanted black rifles could have them.

But this is California, where every conceivable restriction from the outright banning of entire classes of weapons, to attempts to ban the purchase of ammunition, and attempts at making thousands of honest citizens into felons has been attempted by our elected officials. We can't even buy the latest technology in handguns because our handgun roster deems them unsafe even though millions of Americans, including California Law Enforcement, use these exact same weapons responsibly without incident.

There is nothing wrong with being a gun rights organization that doesn't want to do anything to help gun owners. Just let everyone know so we can move onto one that does.

This applies to the NRA here in California too. I think Wormwood echoed my sentiments in the fact that for the longest time many states have been abandoned as lost causes by the NRA, causing a gaping hole that is now being filled by organizations like the CGF and SAF. I can totally understand why there would be resentment.

As a professional, I have on occasion had my work and efforts usurped and down right stolen by colleagues and it is never appreciated.

Khanan
12-11-2012, 7:39 AM
QFT.
I think some of their programs are great, their shooting programs, firearms safety education, etc, but the basic public image is of a good old white men's club more or less, it could be so much more. It SHOULD be so much more.


I agree with this with all my being. NRA needs to quit sending SPAM and associating with the likes of Lifelock. They recently mailed a DVD and asked for money for it. I threw it away along with the rest of the junk mail. They then sent me a letter telling me that I have to pay for that DVD or return it. Sorry, sending something unsolicited means it is mine and you can't make me pay for it. This is a very old and nefarious scam. I can't believe a world class organization would attempt this.

NRA quit with the nasty, stupid tactics to get money out of people and get your image out of the backwoods of West Virginia, PLEASE. NRA does so many good things but your fund raising techniques make you just another telemarketer calling at dinner time.

Barney Fife
12-11-2012, 8:13 AM
Maybe they shouldn't. It would be a shame if the most powerful org for CA rights would turn into this ugly bloat that represents the current CRPA.

The rift started a while ago – search is your friend.

Oh, and I think Bill is right – it's about making a buck.

Where is that buck being made then?
While we're at it can we see the budget for CGF that's required for non-prof status?

sunborder
12-11-2012, 8:22 AM
I agree with this with all my being. NRA needs to quit sending SPAM and associating with the likes of Lifelock. They recently mailed a DVD and asked for money for it. I threw it away along with the rest of the junk mail. They then sent me a letter telling me that I have to pay for that DVD or return it. Sorry, sending something unsolicited means it is mine and you can't make me pay for it. This is a very old and nefarious scam. I can't believe a world class organization would attempt this.

NRA quit with the nasty, stupid tactics to get money out of people and get your image out of the backwoods of West Virginia, PLEASE. NRA does so many good things but your fund raising techniques make you just another telemarketer calling at dinner time.

This is why I will not be an NRA member until this practice changes. That and the partisanship, rather than a focus on gun rights. If we would spend even 1% of our efforts working with independents and democrats, we could start making inroads towards making "gun rights" a bipartisan issue. If we just keep beating the Republican drum in this state, we will continue to be outnumbered and outvoted. This will happen more gradually on the national scale too.

Part of the problem with NRA/CRPA/Similar institutions is that they are so focused on preaching to the choir, that they don't spend much effort trying to get at the young, liberal/democrat, person of color demographic. The problem is that this is a losing strategy in the long run if you have taken even a cursory look at national trends in voter registration, census data, or pretty much any measure of what our population is going to look like when my daughter comes of age.

You really want to make a difference? start thinking about how to get young latino girls, schoolteachers, health care professionals, Asian immigrants, and the like to get into shooting and RKBA. THAT is the only way to safeguard the rights of our children. That's one of the great things about CGN/CGF: People like this often feel much more welcome here than they do with anything with even a faint smell of the NRA.

I'd like to personally thank the efforts of all the folks who are working towards safeguarding our rights, and those of our next generation. It pains me to see so much infighting, when all of that energy could be spent on something more productive. How about everyone takes a deep breath, thinks about some potential new shooter (female, minority, liberal, child, etc), and makes a commitment to take them out this weekend and punch holes in paper, annihilate watermelons, or ring a steel gong? It seems like that would be a much better use of all of that negative energy.

TL/DR version: Save it for the gong!

rolo
12-11-2012, 8:27 AM
Unfortunately this incident seems to be the start of the rift between CGF and CGN.

I've been registered here since 2006, reading since before Paul acquired CGN. The rift between CGF and CGN likely started within days of CGF being founded. This is a clash of personalities and sour grapes, right or wrong, evidence of which have been scattered around for years. There is a fundamental lack of respect, again right or wrong, between some of these parties that isn't going to be reconciled, ever.

It's an emotional issue that isn't going to be solved intellectually. We're going to have to lock some of these parties into a room together until someone comes out crying. You can't reason with the unreasonable!

tankarian
12-11-2012, 8:55 AM
Somewhere in an office in San Francisco a bunch of LCAV lawyers (http://smartgunlaws.org/) is reading this thread and laughing their arses off.

Lives_In_Fresno
12-11-2012, 9:20 AM
Somewhere in an office in San Francisco a bunch of LCAV lawyers (http://smartgunlaws.org/) is reading this thread and laughing their arses off.

I'd be surprised if they care that much, frankly. They are trying to fry much bigger fish.

M. D. Van Norman
12-11-2012, 9:23 AM
CRPA played a key role in the defeat of SB 249 and in no way do I say that to take away any credit from any of the other half-dozen or so organizations who all pulled together in that great victory!

Great victory? Please don’t tell me this latest round of petty squabbling is really about credit for the evacuation of Dunkirk. :rolleyes:

Overbear
12-11-2012, 9:47 AM
It can all be summed up like this...


There is no hope for this state, and the best thing that could happen, is a major series of earthquakes that kills off 3/4 of the people in the state. It would in the end be the best for the state, the country, and the human race.

RMP91
12-11-2012, 9:54 AM
It can all be summed up like this...


There is no hope for this state, and the best thing that could happen, is a major series of earthquakes that kills off 3/4 of the people in the state. It would in the end be the best for the state, the country, and the human race.

If Illinois can strike down "No Issue", I'm pretty sure we can get rid of our AWB/Hi-cap ban... :)

chainsaw
12-11-2012, 9:59 AM
...
CRPA played a key role in the defeat of SB 249 and in no way do I say that to take away any credit from any of the other half-dozen or so organizations who all pulled together in that great victory!
...


A lot of people in the gun community take credit for stopping SB249. Many of them probably even believe that it was stopped due to pressure from 2A organizations.

The reality is quite different. The credit for stopping SB249 needs to go internal squabbles between Senator Yee's office and the AG, and within the democratic senate caucus, in particular Senator Steinberg (I don't know whether he was a participant in the squabble or whether he only conveyed the result as part of his job as President Pro Tem). If any, the pressure from 2A groups caused SB249 to live longer than it otherwise would have.

But seen from the viewpoint of the black rifle community and the bullet button folks, stopping SB249 was a great victory, and it makes sense that everyone wants to be a father of success.

hornswaggled
12-11-2012, 10:01 AM
If Illinois can strike down "No Issue", I'm pretty sure we can get rid of our AWB/Hi-cap ban... :)

Yeah and the high-cap mag ban!

hawk1
12-11-2012, 10:02 AM
If Illinois can strike down "No Issue", I'm pretty sure we can get rid of our AWB/Hi-cap ban... :)

You really think so? With all the petty crap these guys are in-fighting about?

I highly doubt it. They can't see the forest through the trees...

Waiting to read who here is taking credit for the 7th appeals court win...

Barney Fife
12-11-2012, 10:12 AM
You really think so? With all the petty crap these guys are in-fighting about?

I highly doubt it. They can't see the forest through the trees...

Waiting to read who here is taking credit for the 7th appeals court win...



Overall I think Chainsaw nailed it, but I only know of one of the 2A groups that is taking credit for 249s defeat. The rest have all said they were a part of that defeat.

bwiese
12-11-2012, 10:13 AM
You really think so? With all the petty crap these guys are in-fighting about?

Really, sonny?

You think the above yammerfest remotely has anything to do with anyone's actual work or stops or diverts anything? What someone posts here does not change any organizations' filings, court calendars, workflow, me getting calls at midnight when someone is in trouble, yadayada.

Coded-Dude
12-11-2012, 10:14 AM
You really think so? With all the petty crap these guys are in-fighting about?

I highly doubt it. They can't see the forest through the trees...

Waiting to read who here is taking credit for the 7th appeals court win...

A couple of sites are saying it was an NRA win and/or NRA funded case. I know it was a SAF case/win.....so, how much did the NRA actually get involved(if at all)?

bwiese
12-11-2012, 10:19 AM
The reality is quite different. The credit for stopping SB249 needs to go internal squabbles between Senator Yee's office and the AG, and within the democratic senate caucus, in particular Senator Steinberg (I don't know whether he was a participant in the squabble or whether he only conveyed the result as part of his job as President Pro Tem). If any, the pressure from 2A groups caused SB249 to live longer than it otherwise would have.

I do not believe you have accurate information. Steinberg is one of Alison's boys. He was dragged kicking and screaming into AB2728.

There are ALWAYS tensions between legislators and outside of budgets this stuff is small potatoes and usually goes thru. Really it was killed in Approps due to them seeing how wild costs and derivative problems would be, plus the legislative staffers were so overwhelmed with public response directed at them, which was largely a CGx thing [note the x].

And while accusations of racist taunts existed, this appears to have been directed from the ARFcom crowd when this thing 'went national' on ARFcom and every goober idjit went on a 'firemission'.

This is the really first time pressure has been applied to LEGISLATIVE AIDES, and it will not be the last - esp when the aides were significantly driving the matter (vs. Yee wanting a short term PR puff piece more than anything).



[quote]But seen from the viewpoint of the black rifle community and the bullet button folks, stopping SB249 was a great victory,

It was a victory because it was a win but kinda hollow since it SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

For that, we have Abby Stirling and CBS news 'making an issue'.

hawk1
12-11-2012, 10:20 AM
Really, sonny?

You think the above yammerfest remotely has anything to do with anyone's actual work or stops or diverts anything? What someone posts here does not change any organizations' filings, court calendars, workflow, me getting calls at midnight when someone is in trouble, yadayada.

Sorry my names not Sonny...

Bill, with the above yammerfest done in public, then one can only imagine the lack of cooperation that is going on with you guys.

Just think how much easier, better, decisive you could be without it.

tenpercentfirearms
12-11-2012, 10:22 AM
The next anti you run into, ask them what they think about the Mike Schwartz/Gene Hoffman rift. Or ask them about the CGF/CRPA falling out.

Let us know what they say.

Then ask your pro-gun friends what they think. Report their response.

The reality is no one outside of this thread cares about any of this. It really isn't that important. Inside squabbling happens everywhere.

This will fade away and we will keep winning.

That is my prediction.

tcrpe
12-11-2012, 10:31 AM
A couple of sites are saying it was an NRA win and/or NRA funded case. I know it was a SAF case/win.....so, how much did the NRA actually get involved(if at all)?

The NRA is saying they funded this case.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/12/victory-for-self-defense-and-the-second-amendment.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

String back to post 227.

bwiese
12-11-2012, 10:42 AM
Sorry my names not Sonny...

Bill, with the above yammerfest done in public, then one can only imagine the lack of cooperation that is going on with you guys.

Just think how much easier, better, decisive you could be without it.

I can forgive your lack of knowledge on our day to day work, or your local PTA-like truisms about 'unity' (can we get those posters that are put up in workspaces to "motivate" people too? Those are funny.)

The fact you think my or Gene's or Brandon's replies above 'took time away' is laughable or that some other org's behavior [outside Gorski-like damage] determines workflow is charming.

And Wes has said it best. Nobody cares except for the people that don't know what's going on and/or think this means anything at all.

CRPAGunner
12-11-2012, 11:42 AM
The next anti you run into, ask them what they think about the Mike Schwartz/Gene Hoffman rift. Or ask them about the CGF/CRPA falling out.

Let us know what they say.

Then ask your pro-gun friends what they think. Report their response.

The reality is no one outside of this thread cares about any of this. It really isn't that important. Inside squabbling happens everywhere.

This will fade away and we will keep winning.

That is my prediction.

Wes absolutely nailed it! This dust up is a minor diversion at best..........Most of us have already moved on!

Let's get to it.........We have work to do!

bwiese
12-11-2012, 12:02 PM
Wes absolutely nailed it! This dust up is a minor diversion at best..........Most of us have already moved on!

Let's get to it.........We have work to do!


Tony - agreed!

Amzing how 3 posts blow up into the end of the world.

Now I can go back to working on convincing a Major Large Gun Mfgr to sell most of their guns as "Roster exempt" in CA.

taperxz
12-11-2012, 12:12 PM
Tony - agreed!

Amzing how 3 posts blow up into the end of the world.

Now I can go back to working on convincing a Major Large Gun Mfgr to sell most of their guns as "Roster exempt" in CA.

That would be cool!

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 12:25 PM
A couple of sites are saying it was an NRA win and/or NRA funded case. I know it was a SAF case/win.....so, how much did the NRA actually get involved(if at all)?

I'm here to explain to everyone that CGF and SAF get a large amount of credit in Illinois. SAF gets full credit I might add.

Those arguments were created for Yolo and Sacramento County and the District of Columbia. We were told we were insane to go after Carry days after Nordyke incorporated. Go look at the original filing dates on all those cases. They're online and on here.

The people who told us we were insane are now telling you about how they jumped on the bandwagon and were really the victors.

Riddle me this. If NRA-ILA won IL, why does the opinion call them out like this?
But we note with disapproval that the opening brief
for the plaintiffs in appeal no. 12-1788, in quoting the
last sentence above from the article by Cook and
his colleagues, deleted without ellipses the last
clause—“assuming that some sort of permit system
for public carry is allowed to stand.”
Bottom of page 9, top of page 10 - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/12-1269-Moore-Opinion-2012-12-11.pdf

I'm glad that the SAF legal team didn't make the same sorts of errors...

-Gene

wildhawker
12-11-2012, 1:45 PM
When the author of the email asks for it as a cite it's not an issue regarding the rules.

I'll restate the record so you can better understand the fatal flaw in your argument:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7017/screenshot20121211at229.png

Note what was asserted by Crom in his original post (which he later edited).

My request for a cite was specifically with respect to that post to which I responded (above). Words matter.

In any case, remember in the future that you set the precedent that effectively any interpretation of a request for evidence here is sufficient to post emails. That is, unless CGN rules aren't bound by CGN admin precedent and you simply do what you want ad hoc.

Contributes nothing, okay so I'll be removing the advertisements, threads and all references in sig lines and posts to donating to CGF and/or the CGF Amazon program.

If you believe that there is a monetary value to that content, I fully support recompense. In that case, however, would it not be similarly true that CGF should be compensated by CGN for the traffic directed here by our content and participation? It's either a forum or not.

Since I contribute nothing by giving CGF free advertising, multiple banner ads, keeping a constant link to 'Donate to CF' at the top of each page and stickied threads pushing 'shop2A' all of that is obviously no longer needed.

Perhaps not. I would be happy to A B test it and report back.

Not all contributions look the same.

I fully agree.

Think about this, despite all the insults, vulgar names, disparaging remarks, false accusations and denigrating statements you've made about CGN and me personally and how you've stated 'CGF doesn't need CGN anymore' I still have neither banned you nor removed the many links and references asking CGN members to support CGF.

If I've actually violated the rules, why didn't you ban me? Does that imply that CGN rules are really whatever you want them to be? Sounds like Yolo's carry license policy.

I even tell people that if they can only do one, rather than contribute to CGN, send it to CGF.

Excellent. The organization that actually does the work of advancing our rights (for which you serve as a member of the board) appreciates that consideration.

So if we remove all the requests to support CGF from CGN how much will that cost CGF in income?

I suspect little to nothing.

Will you still get paid the same amount by CGF as you are being paid now?

Calls for speculation. As you know, that would be a board decision. I'd welcome the opportunity to comprehensively evaluate a proposal by you and its consequences.

-Brandon

OleCuss
12-11-2012, 1:57 PM
.
.
.
Riddle me this. If NRA-ILA won IL, why does the opinion call them out like this?
Quote deleted for brevity
Bottom of page 9, top of page 10 - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/12-1269-Moore-Opinion-2012-12-11.pdf

I'm glad that the SAF legal team didn't make the same sorts of errors...

-Gene

Thank you for pointing that out!

That sounded like a very displeased court. . . I wonder if this might have the unfortunate consequence of subsequent courts being more skeptical of statements on behalf of the NRA and possibly cause problems in other cases?

wildhawker
12-11-2012, 2:03 PM
First off, in reference to Chuck Michel; not only is Chuck the California attorney for the NRA but he is also the attorney for the CRPA foundation. He is an extremely savvy, capable and competent attorney, especially in this area of law.

Can you cite a federal Second Amendment case outcome that supports your argument?

The NRA is not in the habit of hiring 'light weights' or attorneys who are incompetent.

That's interesting, because NRA lawyers have historically lost 2A cases and caused harm with respect to e.g. standing arguments. See, e.g. Halbrook.

Obviously, others have a different opinion. I can only judge Chuck by his results, i.e. AB962.

You mean the injunctive relief that's being appealed by A.G. Harris and for which fees were not awarded even after the court held that "Plainitffs shall recover their costs of suit based on a memo of costs?" I'm sure you read the docket, but to refresh your memory:

"In this case, the Court is unable to determine if the Plaintiffs' financial burden of attorneys' fees is out of proportion to their personal stake in litigating the case because the Plaintiffs have failed to provide the Court with evidence establishing what the private financial or pecuniary interest each Plaintiff had, or did not have...the Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support these assertions. Further, while the Plaintiffs acknowledge that Plaintiff Able's Sporting, Inc. does have pecuniary interest in the action and allege in the memorandums of points and authorities that this Plaintiff received no direct pecuniary gain and any indirect gain is highly speculative, the Plaintiffs have also failed to present any evidence to the Court to support those allegations."

I will not comment on any interaction Chuck may have had with Gray, since I wasn't there. But Gray has a track record of insulting and posting disparaging remarks not only about Chuck, but myself also.

The truth can smart a bit.

Personally, I could care less what anyone says about me on the Internet.

That's funny. History shows otherwise.

I can assure you, Chuck Michel and his firm are more than pulling their weight on behalf of all California gun owners and we are lucky to have him on our side!

By pulling weight, do you mean writing email copy or ?? You say "luck", others say...

I will continue to honor my pledge to never disparage or talk poorly about Gene, Josh, Bill or any of the other former CRPA board members who decided to leave the organization.

HILARIOUS! See:

As far as the CRPA and its future is concerned, ironically the loss of the previously mentioned board members was in retrospect, the best possible outcome for the organization as a whole.

Heh, so much for your "pledge to never disparage or talk poorly about Gene, Josh, Bill or any of the other former CRPA board members who decided to leave the organization."

This is a perfect example of why the anti-gun crowd doesn't have to do anything to destroy us; we are perfectly capable of destroying ourselves.

That's interesting. SAF and NRA won a major 2A case at CA7 today in spite of this thread. "Destroying ourselves", and yet Gura is 2-0 at SCOTUS.

..........."Can't we all just get along?"

History and your argument suggest the answer to be "in some specific cases yes, but generally probably not."

-Brandon

Crom
12-11-2012, 2:17 PM
Good lord Brandon... Are you angry all the time? Take a deep breath, relax, calm down, go workout, meditate, go on a nice vacation, have a cup of tea, whatever floats your boat, and please stop fighting :) What's more important? Being right or being happy? Be happy! :D Nothing personal but I actually reported your earlier post where you continued to insult Kes but apparently no moderator took action. :confused:

wildhawker
12-11-2012, 2:22 PM
I'm quite happy and smiling ear to ear. Today was a great day for 2A; it's nice when hard work pays off.

-Brandon

Calplinker
12-11-2012, 2:31 PM
Brandon,

You strike me as someone who, while bright and dedicated to our cause, lacks emotional maturity.

You need to go take a walk and cool off.

Something to think about.

taperxz
12-11-2012, 2:33 PM
Good lord Brandon... Are you angry all the time? Take a deep breath, relax, calm down, go workout, meditate, go on a nice vacation, have a cup of tea, whatever floats your boat, and please stop fighting :) What's more important? Being right or being happy? Be happy! :D Nothing personal but I actually reported your earlier post where you continued to insult Kes but apparently no moderator took action. :confused:

I'm quite happy and smiling ear to ear. Today was a great day for 2A; it's nice when hard work pays off.

-Brandon

In fairness to Brandon he does work for SAF and CGF! This is indeed a good day for him in the courts. SAF with help from CGF got a carry decision in Federal Court!!! Good for everyone as far as i'm concerned.:)

bwiese
12-11-2012, 2:38 PM
Yup.

Some people would rather strive to be happy than right.

In the commercial sphere, those are called unemployed ;-)

taperxz
12-11-2012, 2:39 PM
Brandon,

You strike me as someone who, while bright and dedicated to our cause, lacks emotional maturity.

You need to go take a walk and cool off.

Something to think about.

Have you ever talked to Brandon in person? Text can easily be mis understood or mal conceived.

Barney Fife
12-11-2012, 2:42 PM
Have you ever talked to Brandon in person? Text can easily be mis understood or mal conceived.

True. And yet I find that people are typically more their real selves on the net than in person.
Yes, at times thats to my own condemnation as well.