PDA

View Full Version : AB1471/821 postmortem - GOC+CRPA screwed us


bwiese
10-25-2007, 10:07 PM
I've been nosing around talking with various folks that hang around Sac, trying to find out why AB1471 & AB821 were signed - even though Gov's legislative staff recommended against it.

It was worse than I thought: it came from "our side" - and it had absolutely nothing to do with specious assumptions it resulted from Teddy Kennedy being part of Arnie's extended family. Initial reports that some police association or a buncha police chiefs drove it were not correct (or the influence was so minor to be negligible).

You might remember that a SoCal Senator (Hollingsworth) was involved in calling for the head of a Fish & Game commissioner named Hanna. Hanna supported a lead ammo ban, or appeared at least to support some of the claims of purported damage caused by lead ammo. This was stupidly instigated at a very sensitive time for us, when the governor could have used the existence of the DFG regulatory powers as cover to vetoing the bill, saying it was unnecessary/duplicative. Hollingsworth & other similar-minded politicians can't be blamed for this: they were responding to what they saw as constituent anger over an F&G matter. Hollingsworth saw a problem they were contacted about, and tried to help - so let's not burn our friends, who were actually being direct and responsive! [So don't hammer them or make nasty calls to these reps, OK?]

Apparently Arnie (and/or senior political staff) felt Hanna had to go due to 'keeping the peace' in party politics, but really felt cornered and pressured into making this happen at this time. It was a move the governor didn't wanna make but it apparently had to happen, party-wise.

The letter circulated by Hollingsworth was driven by GOC's (Gun Owners of California) Sam Paredes, and had backing from Kathy Lynch and Gerry Upholt (In fact, I'm hearing that Paredes likely ghost-wrote the letter.) Both these groups (well, these three people) had some personal grudges against Hanna, perhaps even for non-gun reasons.

Needless to say, who gets blamed for the drama, and who gets conspicuously associated with this action? The NRA, of course - who was way too smart to cause Hanna trouble when legislation (3 bills) was gonna be landing on governor's desk soon. Legislative staffers reported calls from news agencies asking why the NRA was doing this, etc. (Few journalists know of CRPA or GOC.)

The politics/pressure with these F&G matters surrounding Hanna stunk so bad with the Gov & staff - and he's obviously a personality who doesn't respond well when 'cornered' - that he signed *both* 1471 and 821 as 'payback' to the "gun people". Up at that level, on relatively 'small' bills (compared to major state matters like taxes, roads, water, etc.), there's no dividing line perceived concerning NRA vs other groups they screw up, NRA gets blame.

While quite a few folks were worried that AB821 might turn out to be a clusterfluck due to GOC & etc. hamfisted Hanna dealings, nobody thought that any 'backwash' would propagate to AB1471 - but it did. Some of the Hanna affair matters left a very, very sour taste with Gov & senior staff - and when you push a dude like that, he plays hardball big-time.

These bills were ours to kill, and we shot ourselves in the foot entirely due to our supposed "pro-gun" "friends".

The ONLY reason these bills were signed is because of the GOC-inspired/CRPA-supported Hanna debacle, and the leadership of various non-NRA groups was too friggin' hotheaded in their zeal to take a little guy down that they instead let the Big Guy walk all over them.

The private lobbying firm calling itself GOC - and whose leadership cannot be shaped, changed or motivated by its membership - perhaps needs to be restructured thru attrition (i.e, "vote with your checkbook").

Hell, we'd have far better pro-gun results in California if we sent GOC membership checks to the Bradys instead of supporting these clowns.

Upholt, Lynch and Paredes need to take another occupation. I am sorry to say that by sheer results alone, they're essentially running de facto anti-gun organizations which in combinatorial stupidity have more weight than the Brady Campaign.

You'd figure after the SB15 approved handgun Roster, as well as the AB2731 Torrico ammunition bill last year, that they'd at least learn.

[Oh - wanna bet that when regulatory hearings for lead ammo, microstamping and for AB2111 firearms transaction processing numbers come around, they'll not be at the hearing or present any substantive comments or analyses?]

Perhaps you can help change things by not renewing your GOC "membership". It's about the only way you can vote & affect the leadership of these groups, since membership in this organization means "sends us a check" - no board elections, etc.

This sh*t makes me mad. We coulda had these in the bag. We ran the drill, we did everything right, we even had some ability to 'control our luck' in unfriendly waters. And then we get sabotaged by our own side. Now, NRA time & legal fees - your membership dollars - will have to be burned at multiple regulatory hearings addressing these bills' conflicts, complexity and unintended outcomes.

JawBone
10-25-2007, 10:23 PM
son of a :censored: !

So, in sum because they couldn't sit on their hands for a month over a petty personality vendetta we all get stuck with a back-door semi-auto ban and lead ammo ban as payback? Excuse me while I go try to pull the knife out of our collective backs.

.223
10-25-2007, 10:35 PM
http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/attachments/mookydookys-just-for-laughs/16788-sandwiches-facepalm.jpg

tgriffin
10-25-2007, 10:45 PM
dammit dammit dammit all to hell. Idiots.

oaklander
10-25-2007, 10:51 PM
There are *no* good "2nd tier" gun groups, IMHO.

Patriot
10-25-2007, 10:57 PM
The politics/pressure with these F&G matters surrounding Hanna stunk so bad with the Gov & staff - and he's obviously a personality who doesn't respond well when 'cornered' - that he voted for *both* 1471 and 821 as 'payback' to the "gun people".

I wish our elected officials would do their thinking with the right head :mad:

I and others here will try to drive alternate ways/organizations to distribute ODCMP Garands, etc. - since that now seems to be the main reason to even be associated with CRPA.

:iagree:

Mute
10-25-2007, 10:59 PM
I won't comment as this is a family friendly forum. These morons just better pray they never cross my path. Regardless, Benedict Arnold punishing all gunowners for the idiocy of these oxygen-wasters still puts him on my crap list.

just4fun63
10-25-2007, 11:07 PM
I and others here will try to drive alternate ways/organizations to distribute ODCMP Garands, etc. - since that now seems to be the main reason to even be associated with CRPA.

+1 Thats the only reason I ever joined. Raffles and dinner is all they seem to care about any more.

Bwiese thanks for all your effort on all our behalf's

I think the Garand collectors group qualifies you to purchase but I'm not 100% sure

savasyn
10-25-2007, 11:28 PM
So, if passing these laws to let us know that "he's the Man" was actually the case, is it possible, now that he has "proven his point", that we could some how get him to help nullify them in anyway, shape or form? If he doesn't support them for "real" reasons, perhaps he wouldn't fight us trying to repeal them.
Just a thought, but I have not idea how politics actually works so I could just be talking out of my ***.

MrLogan
10-25-2007, 11:33 PM
What a bunch of asshats! :mad:

CCWFacts
10-25-2007, 11:47 PM
As I always say (and I always get flamed for it too) be smart and pick your battles, and prioritize. Damn the torpedoes / no compromise on anything ever / we'll punish anyone who we think has given an inch results in the biggest losses when we are in a minority position.

PanzerAce
10-26-2007, 12:27 AM
What I think is most telling is that the NRA is apparently the only 2A group that realized that CGN is a power house. Don't piss us off, and we can do things for you as well.

And people wonder why I dislike most other groups. *shakes head*.

CCWFacts
10-26-2007, 1:31 AM
You'd figure after SB15 approved handgun Roster and the AB2731 Torrico ammunition bill last year that they'd at least learn.

They won't learn. They think this game is all or nothing. Well, we're in the minority in this state so we must use our brains and our judgment if we want to achieve anything.

I was a member of those groups but I will not ever send them another dollar. As BW says, they are handing victories to the Brady Campaign. Their tactics might make sense in Montana, but here in California we need to play a more sophisticated game to have any hope. And the NRA does play a sophisticated lobbying game. Very non-sophisticated people don't like that, but this is the real world we're dealing in. We're the little guy in this state, and for the little guy to win, he must be smarter than the other guys, and that also means being smart about where he stays and fights. This is like guerrilla warfare, where a small force defeats a large force by carefully picking the battles and the terms of the battles, rather than trying to set up a front and throw everything into defense of the front.

Now if only the NRA could do something to rehabilitate their "brand name" in this state...

It's really a shame that so much angst went into this lead ammo ban. Hello, all hunting activities are already very heavily regulated, in CA and other states. We already have no-lead shot requirements. This is among hundreds of other requirements: hunting licenses, only on certain days, bag limits, caliber limits, magazine capacity limits while hunting, on and on. This is a minor change to an already large body of laws and regulations. Wasting political capital on something like that, is a sad waste.

And as BW says, F&G probably could have done that with a regulation, not even needing a law. To fire the F&G director over this... that is really not a smooth move. And we need to be making smooth moves.

But this all goes over the heads of so many rank-and-file gun rights activists, who keep on bleating about "no compromise", "my cold dead fingers", etc.

radioactivelego
10-26-2007, 1:41 AM
What?

What happened to like, all uniting together here? I'm not just singling out CRPA or GOC. If we are "all in this fight together," why aren't the CRPA, GOC, and NRA working together? I keep reading this thing and want to hear CRPA or GOC's side of the story. A lot of it sounds like banter or unconfirmed drama that, if truly put out there, would cause some drama in the newspapers.

bwiese
10-26-2007, 2:05 AM
What happened to like, all uniting together here? I'm not just singling out CRPA or GOC. If we are "all in this fight together," why aren't the CRPA, GOC, and NRA working together?

I know the NRA, for one, would like nothing better than that. Unfortunately CA NRA has only the 2nd Amendment for its client and the other "pro-gun" types lobbyists have multiple clients, and whose allegiances may be at cross purposes.

Unity is great, unless you are a contract lobbyist that represents multiple lines and are doing 'horsetrading' amongs legislators/clients, etc.: "I'll help you with X if you support Y and convince Joe to do Z." NRA does none of that.

But the people working for CRPA etc are contract lobbyists (Gerry Upholt and Kathy Lynch). They seem to represent other matters too sporting and otherwise. In addition, CRPA has ties (esp thru Lynch) to large retailers/sporting goods shops. That's why they actually supported SB15, the original safe handgun Roster, which has morphed thru mag disconnects and locked chamber indicators all the way to microstamping now. (Their large dealer clients felt that continual dropping off of approved inventory would help suppress competition from smaller shops.)

They're also somewhat naive - Upholt thinks he's real wheeler & dealer. What he doesn't understand is that in antigunners write bills with throwaway provisions in them that Upholt will fight to get removed before he offers tacit support. He doesn't realize there's "Jerry stuff" thrown in to intentionally be negotiated away so he feels like he's done something.

The whole 'safe handgun Roster' was in fact brought to you by CRPA due to mass retailer (Turner's, etc) driving their lobbyist to support it.


I keep reading this thing and want to hear CRPA or GOC's side of the story. A lot of it sounds like banter or unconfirmed drama that, if truly put out there, would cause some drama in the newspapers.

CRPA hides. They can't refute this. And Paredes is too dumb to know what he did: he took on a mission of personal vengeance (for whatever reason) against DFG commissioner Hanna without thinking of the far bigger picture, and did it at a critical time, the run-up to governor's bill signing period.

And newspapers have little interest in this. NRA got the blame for all this because newspapers don't even know about CRPA, GOC and can't separate the two. And the gov/staff can't differentiate - they just think "gun guys", and that always translates to NRA even when it's another group's screwup.

Look what happened to the Capitol Weekly article on all the off-list stuff and DOJ BoF etc. The reporter didn't understand everything, DOJ BoF refused to talk unless Calguns was specifically *not* mentioned, etc. It got lost in a bunch of technicalities and low-level 5th-tier bureaucratic politics since nobody got shot.

KenpoProfessor
10-26-2007, 4:06 AM
I think this whole mess stinks to high heaven, regardless. What, Arnie isn't the bad guy here now, it's gotta be someone else? Please, Arnie did what he wanted to do, you can't blame anyone for his decisions. If a politician is acting in the best interest of his/her party, then they don't need to be in politics.

When will elected officials get the idea that they were elected to represent the constituents that voted them in. The sooner they learn this, AGAIN, the better. Gallup reports an 18% Congressional approval rating, down again this month, that alone says more than anything.

Arnie is the only person you should blame for this. The CRPA and GOC are acting in their best interest, and I believe for CA, and Arnie could've simply ignored them. He didn't, and signed the bill regardless, remember that.

The NRA is no better than the Brady group, they both BUY the vote with the money of their members. Lobbying should be illegal, let the constituents do the lobbying, find the issues, etc., maybe then we can get back to what was important in this country. Paying someone to lobby is just being lazy, especially after what you guys did to try and overcome AB1471. Your efforts were outstanding, but the result was still negative, and Arnie, and those that created this horrible bill in the state Senate and house are the only ones to blame.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Kestryll
10-26-2007, 9:55 AM
I keep reading this thing and want to hear CRPA or GOC's side of the story.

I have always said and I will reiterate, ANY of the California pro gun groups are welcome to step up and have their say here.

As long as they don't walk in the door swinging we'd like to hear from them.
Does the NRA have a loud voice here? Yes.
Did they earn it while every other group went to lunch? Yes.
That doesn't mean they are the ONLY voice here but no one has EVER stepped up to do any more than post copies of emails from CRPA and GOC.

The CRPA and GOC are acting in their best interest
Yes, they are. The problem is they are suppose to be and claim to be working in OUR best interest. That is why they take money from people.

bwiese
10-26-2007, 10:24 AM
Did they earn it while every other group went to lunch? Yes.

Bwaahh, Kest, you don't know how true that is. We saw 'em up in Sacto during the regulatory hearings at lunch or going to lunch when they shoulda been with NRA and Calgunners at the auditorium.

Can'thavenuthingood
10-26-2007, 10:33 AM
Wish I was still a member so I could quit them again.
Those regulatory hearings are when I left CRPA. They wouldn't even say Hi to you folks who went up there.

http://www.lynchassoc.com/about.html

Kathy Lynch, the lobbyist for sportsmen
http://www.calwildlife.org/csl.htm

She looks much younger than I thought.

Vick

Joe Register
10-26-2007, 10:38 AM
Arnie is not off the hook in my book. Of course I lost faith in him after the .50 ban. He could have vetoed these and did not. To blame it on others is weak. He has the power and he is the one that put the screws to all of you. Now you are looking for other scapegoats so you can pretend he won't do it again next time?

bwiese
10-26-2007, 10:39 AM
Wish I was still a member so I could quit them again.
Those regulatory hearings are when I left CRPA. They wouldn't even say Hi to you folks who went up there.

http://www.lynchassoc.com/about.html

Kathy Lynch, the lobbyist for sportsmen
http://www.calwildlife.org/csl.htm

She looks much younger than I thought.

That's a ~20yr old glam shot. Much, um, different appearance now.

BTW, look at the list of her clients. You don't see a lot of firearms exclusivity there, do you - but perhaps a lot of opportunity for inter-issue 'horsetrading'??

EastBayRidge
10-26-2007, 11:26 AM
Wow. Just wow. Not another dime from me.

I don't take anything away from those blaming Arnie - the buck stops at his desk. But that's no excuse for this kind of a clusterf*ck on our end. We face enough obstacles already, and don't need to throw up self-made ones.

Exiledviking
10-26-2007, 11:53 AM
It sounds like Arnie was playing in the sandbox with the other kids and someone threw sand in his face.
And, of course, he responds like a child by putting it to the gun owners in California!:mad:


Arnie is not off the hook in my book. Of course I lost faith in him after the .50 ban. He could have vetoed these and did not. To blame it on others is weak. He has the power and he is the one that put the screws to all of you. Now you are looking for other scapegoats so you can pretend he won't do it again next time?

I agree! I will remember when I vote...

Can'thavenuthingood
10-26-2007, 12:39 PM
Not to defend the Governor BUT, it was the Assembly and Senate that put those Bills on his desk.

Its a pretty good business being a Lobbyist. For 2005 $561,515 was pulled in by Lynch & Associates. Haven't yet found who her Associates are but I'm still looking.

In the meantime I found a client list from the Secretary of State for 2005. The list for 2006 and 07 doesn't appear to be online.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/prd/Lobreport2005/firms_summary.pdf
LYNCH & ASSOCIATES
Lobbyist(s)
KATHRYN A. LYNCH
Client(s) 2005 TOTAL

ALBERT RAMIREZ BAIL BONDS 16,000.00
AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION 65,000.00
ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. 22,000.00
B & L PRODUCTIONS, INC. 24,000.00
BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS INC. 17,000.00
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR ARTS EDUCATION 16,500.00
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF INFORMATION & REFERRAL SERVICES (CAIRS) 2,000.00
CALIFORNIA ARTS ADVOCATES 11,000.00
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION, DANCE 23,100.00
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FIREARM RETAILERS 5,500.00
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS 10,200.00
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NONPROFITS 33,000.00
CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE TEACHER'S ASSOCIATION 13,700.00
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVES 12,500.00
CALIFORNIA SPORTSMAN'S LOBBY, INC. 18,000.00
CHEMCO, INC. 42,000.00
COMMUNITY RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC. 2,000.00
CR&R INC. 15,000.00
GOLDEN STATE BAIL AGENTS ASSOCIATION, INC. 18,000.00
HALLMARK CARDS, INC. 14,375.00
HUNTING AND SHOOTING SPORTS HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC. 0.00
MEADWESTVACO 10,500.00
NATIONAL AIR-POWERED SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION 3,750.00
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC. 29,500.00
NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY INSTITUTE 13,000.00
ONLINE TRAFFIC SCHOOL 4,000.00
OUTDOOR SPORTSMEN 'S COALITION OF CALIFORNIA 6,000.00
PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL NETWORK 14,000.00
PRODUCTION ELECTRIC VEHICLE DRIVERS COALITION 24,000.00
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL/CALIFORNIA CHAPTERS 19,390.00
SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS 25,000.00
SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC. 0.00
WESTERN WOOD PRESERVERS INSTITUTE 31,500.00
Page 96 of 170
2005 TOTAL
TOTAL: $ 561,515.00

Haven't found CRPA or GOC anywhere yet.

Okay this is what you get when I'm a bit bored and feel like snooping around.

Vick

Patriot
10-26-2007, 12:54 PM
HALLMARK CARDS, INC. 14,375.00

:confused: Labor law or something? :shrug:

paradox
10-26-2007, 1:13 PM
The question now becomes, how to we drain the membership from these backstabbing *****es.

Since the CMP is a gov’t organization, can we FOIA a list of folks that used the CRPA to get a garand, then send each of them a letter detailing the backstabbing that has gone on?

Patriot
10-26-2007, 1:21 PM
The question now becomes, how to we drain the membership from these backstabbing *****es.

Since the CMP is a gov’t organization, can we FOIA a list of folks that used the CRPA to get a garand, then send each of them a letter detailing the backstabbing that has gone on?

I don't know if the CMP is still technically a government organization.

Even if you could pull that off, I personally as a recipient would be more pissed at you for invading my privacy than anyone else.

If they send a pre-paid envelope asking me to renew my membership, I just might. In pennies.

Joe Register
10-26-2007, 1:35 PM
For those who don't know, CMP accepts membership in the Garand Collectors Association. I joined last year when I let my CRPA membership expire.

Crazed_SS
10-26-2007, 1:37 PM
There's a lot of military people here.. Your DD214 and membership in a Veteran's group like American Legion is sufficient to get a Garand.

dwtt
10-26-2007, 2:08 PM
If this is true, then CRPA and GOC sold us out for their own self interests. I'm very glad I am no longer a member of either of those sh*tty outfits.

bulgron
10-26-2007, 2:53 PM
I was thinking about joining GOC. Not any more!

johnny_22
10-26-2007, 3:09 PM
Let's send them letters letting them know how much they messed up fooling with the DFG membership.

http://www.crpa.org/x_formview.asp?formid=1181838895

Maybe we can fill that "magazine" The Firing Line with complaint letters rather than reprinted articles.

Piper
10-26-2007, 3:29 PM
I decided 6 months ago not to renew my CRPA membership. In fact, I'm a member of the Illinois State Rifle Association because I was born in Chicago and I've seen more action from them. I honestly believe that they will have Right to Carry long before California. Those guys are kicking butt and are getting counties to reject new laws. In fact they have Sheriff's telling the state that they will not enforce any new laws. So I'm putting my money on Illinois to be one of the next right to carry states. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if California is the last state to have right to carry. But that's just my observations.

Piper
10-26-2007, 3:37 PM
There's a lot of military people here.. Your DD214 and membership in a Veteran's group like American Legion is sufficient to get a Garand.

I have my 214 and I am elegible to join the VFW, so what does it cost to purchase a Garand?

bulgron
10-26-2007, 4:05 PM
In fact it wouldn't surprise me if California is the last state to have right to carry. But that's just my observations.

I think it's a toss-up between CA and Hawaii as to which will be the last state with right-to-carry. I'm also pretty convinced that if it ever comes to these two states, it will be in the form of a court order.

Can'thavenuthingood
10-26-2007, 4:14 PM
Membership in a rifle range type club like Lemoore Sportsmens Club http://lemooresportsmansclub.org/index.htm allows you to purchase a Garand.

CMP site
http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/m1garand.htm

Here's a list of affiliated Clubs/orgs recognized by the CMP
http://clubs.odcmp.com/cgi-bin/clubSearchSubmit.cgi?all=YES&clubMembership=OPEN;state=CA

"..........to purchase anything from the CMP, an individual must show proof of belonging to an affiliated club or organization."
http://www.odcmp.com/faqs.htm
A copy of your current/retiree military ID card serves to prove as membership in a CMP affiliated organization.

Vick

Diablo
10-26-2007, 4:28 PM
I did wonder on how the law had been passed after all the calls , emails, and letters...:mad:

I just thought that there weren't enough of us...That's chicken s**t.:11:

M. Sage
10-26-2007, 5:59 PM
What?

What happened to like, all uniting together here? I'm not just singling out CRPA or GOC. If we are "all in this fight together," why aren't the CRPA, GOC, and NRA working together? I keep reading this thing and want to hear CRPA or GOC's side of the story. A lot of it sounds like banter or unconfirmed drama that, if truly put out there, would cause some drama in the newspapers.

CRPA and GOC are busy talking about how weak NRA is and how NRA is busy selling us all out ( :rolleyes: ) to try and boost their own membership.

dwtt
10-26-2007, 10:38 PM
I have my 214 and I am elegible to join the VFW, so what does it cost to purchase a Garand?

You can go here. http://www.odcmp.com/
click on the catalog to see what's available now, and on the right is the forms index, which has the order forms.

CalNRA
10-27-2007, 12:22 AM
don't worry, people's memory of this will fade(again) and within a week an "NRA sucks" thread will appear in this forum.

I got a dozen or so people to call and write letters, boy do I feel useless now.

glockman19
10-27-2007, 9:31 AM
bwiese,

Thank you.

AfricanHunter
10-27-2007, 12:56 PM
Anyone have a list of retailers/manufacturers/etc that support the CRPA and GOC?

BamBam-31
10-27-2007, 3:09 PM
I and others here will try to drive alternate ways/organizations to distribute ODCMP Garands, etc. - since that now seems to be the main reason to even be associated with CRPA.


IIRC, membership with USPSA ($35/year) qualifies for the CMP. :)

I'm still beyond pissed that all this passed. That it happened this way....well, let's keep the board family-friendly, eh? :mad:

Crazed_SS
10-27-2007, 3:50 PM
I have my 214 and I am elegible to join the VFW, so what does it cost to purchase a Garand?

Decide which rifle you want.. Im gonna go with a service grade for 600 bucks.
http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/m1garand.htm

Here is the order form.. it has instructions on everything you need to send. http://odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/ordering_information.htm

You gotta get the form notarized too. I still need to do that and mail everything off.

bwiese
10-27-2007, 4:08 PM
Anyone have a list of retailers/manufacturers/etc that support the CRPA and GOC?

Many if not all of these folks are fine pro-gun vendors who don't understand differences and who also support NRA. We don't need to irritate/threaten them, just let them know.

SteveH
10-27-2007, 10:54 PM
I'm a CRPA member. Ever month they publish updates on pending legislation in Cali and most months have articles by CD Michel(sp?). Its been 5 years or more since NRA has sent me any info on pending California legislation.

Its seems like some of you have a personal ax to grind with CRPA leadership. Perhaps for good reason. But it would be nice to see some facts to such claims up.

bwiese
10-27-2007, 11:11 PM
I'm a CRPA member. Ever month they publish updates on pending legislation in Cali and most months have articles by CD Michel(sp?). Its been 5 years or more since NRA has sent me any info on pending California legislation.

Some of the CRPA's info - fortunately apparently not this year - is inaccurate/out of date. And given that legislation changes quickly and there's typically a 15-30 day printing + mailing time lag for flyers/newsletters it can often be useless.

GOC has same issue: I know last year they were still discussing AB2728 as a gun dealer licensing bill when it had already morphed into matters regarding OLLs, AWs, receivers & DOJ 'listing' matters. [Neither CRPA nor GOC showed up at the regulatory meeting in Aug 2006 even though they were down the street; their printed submissions for this hearing were one pagers going into far less detail than the documents submitted by Calgunners, let alone the Mother of All Submisssions from the NRA.]

NRA doesn't have to waste membership money mailing, since immediate up-to date *accurate* legislative updates are available on [url]http://www.calnra.com/url].

Chuck is a knockout pro-gun lawyer and provides legal info & discussion to a variety of gun-oriented organizations, including NRA, Calguns, etc. Plus, getting his articles there is a form of advertising. I don't think it should be regarded as an endorsement for individual behaviors/policies of, say, CRPA. I'm sure Chuck would be glad to post any of his articles here on Calguns too.



But it would be nice to see some facts to such claims up.

I'd hate to 'burn' people I get info from just to keep you happy. I am sure there may be one or two minor errors in my recounting (likely in sequencing of events).

But if I missed a sequence detail or two, the broad strokes are nevertheless true: GOC's Sam Paredes with some CRPA backing pulled out the stops on a personal grudge attack on DFG commissioner Hanna. This caused some party politics to corner Arnie into dismissing Hanna to "keep peace in the house" due to lots of *important* bigtime bills needing cooperation. But this left a bad taste for gun organizations and he supports these bills as 'payback': Arnie's not the type of guy to be cornered, and poltiics and the Mafia is where you set examples of how not to be screwed with. At Arnie's level - governing the 7th largest economy in the world - he has little time nor inclination to separate NRA vs CRPA vs GOC etc. He supported the bill in spite of recommendation of his aides who deal with new legislation so that took extra effort, an indication that the pooch really got screwed.

It was bad enough that not only one bill got screwed up AB821, but that there was 'backwash' into another bill (AB1471).

GOC's Paredes was so focused on taking out Hanna that he forgot it was the absolute WRONG time to even try to do this when a related bill was coming up to the Gov's desk - and that the Governor coulda used the existence of DFG's sufficient regulatory powers as grounds to not sign the bill and say that the bill was 'overreaching'.


Its seems like some of you have a personal ax to grind with CRPA leadership. Perhaps for good reason.

Please remember CRPA is a sole-ownership firm. Your 'membership' is just the fact you mail a check in and get a letter back and assume they are doing something pro-gun. You cannot elect or de-elect any of its leadership or staff.

Their staff in Sacto - Jerry Upholt and Kathy Lynch - are multisubject lobbyists not exclusively focused on guns.

It's been well-discussed here how CRPA - with support from idiot legislative guy from SASS - *supported* and helped drive the SB15 approved handgun Roster and drop testing. (This of course morphed into a whole section of the DWCL that extended later into SB489 (loaded chamber indicators and mag disconnects - and now into microstamping.) CRPA's lobbyists also represent large sporting goods dealers who liked the fact that inventories could be rendered obviated and nonsellable in CA - a big group like Turner's can turn their inventory back to their distributors due to selling power, while a little solo shop is stuck with inventory he can't sell and has to flog outside CA himeself.

SB15 passed by only a couple of wobbler votes that could've swung our way - but CRPA had supported it despite NRA opposition and then SASS got bought off by the single-action exemption. The wobbler legislators saw a split in opposition and figured it was a safe vote and that progunners weren't gonna howl too much. Guess they were right: people still join CRPA.

CRPA's Kathy Lynch was also doing horsetrading on legislation last year (Torrico's AB2731 mailorder ammo ban) because that would increase sales at retail sporting chains and protect them from mail order ammo and bulk milsurp ammo.

m24armorer
10-28-2007, 12:26 AM
Thanks Bill....

My GOC and CRPA renewals were on my desk.

I printed your posts, put them in the envelopes along with a request to be removed from their membership.

Sorry I missed you at the GE today.

bwiese
10-28-2007, 12:02 PM
Aw too bad I missed you John.

CRPA will not change until it starts being membership-oriented with electable staff/board of directors - and until is stops using contract lobbyists in Sacto that handle multiple issues where gun stuff can get lost in 'horse-trading'.

CRPA issues also revolve around the separate interests of gun owners/RKBA from those of large sporting good retailers (who believe SB15 Roster, etc. help them).

GOC issues are a tad different - Paredes needs to wise up and realize the fight right in front of you is not necessarily the fight to be fought.

MudCamper
10-28-2007, 12:42 PM
This saddens me. I'm a life CRPA member. I joined a couple decades ago, before there was any online resource for us gunnies. Back then, the CRPA was the only way I could know what the CA legislature was up to. Bill, I consider you one of the heros here at CalGuns and I have tremendous respect for you. But bashing on the CRPA feels to me like the divide and conquer strategy of our enemies is working. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Is there anything that the members of CRPA can do from the inside to reform it's leadership?

M. Sage
10-28-2007, 1:25 PM
Its been 5 years or more since NRA has sent me any info on pending California legislation.

http://www.calnra.com/legs.shtml

https://secure.nraila.org/EmailSignup.aspx

Also, I opted for the America's First Freedom magazine with my NRA membership, which includes quite a bit of CA-related stuff alongside all the National-level info, though with print, you're behind the curve somewhat...

otteray
10-28-2007, 1:43 PM
This saddens me. I'm a life CRPA member. I joined a couple decades ago, before there was any online resource for us gunnies. Back then, the CRPA was the only way I could know what the CA legislature was up to. Bill, I consider you one of the heros here at CalGuns and I have tremendous respect for you. But bashing on the CRPA feels to me like the divide and conquer strategy of our enemies is working. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Is there anything that the members of CRPA can do from the inside to reform it's leadership?

I ask the same question, Bill.
What you are always saying about them has me really thinking about my membership dues for next year.
Is the GOA separate from GOC?
I'm a 3rd generation NRA and 2nd gen. CRPA member. I joined the NRA in the '60s.
Just like my dad and grandpa before him, I'm a member of the NRA, first and always, in any case.

chris
10-28-2007, 1:58 PM
we were betrayed this year. and now we have to fight this crap in the courts. dam. we did an outstanding job guys only to be screwed by organisations that were supposed to help us.

1911_sfca
10-28-2007, 3:24 PM
Thanks for your research, Bill. So now the question, is what do we do to move forward? Not supporting CRPOA is the first step.

But what about going one step more? There are so many politically active and motivated people on Calguns, why don't we organize a pro-2A movement from this base? Some start-up cash, a motivated crew, and a lobbyist or two, could go very far on our part. Why not?

And by the way, I nominate Bill as CEO. :) If you accept, I have my first contribution check ready and it's not two or three digits. I'm sure many others would follow.

8200rpm
10-28-2007, 6:41 PM
I have edited all my posts recommending CRPA for CMP eligibility requirements.

What a crock of shift! Frankly, I could give rat's *** about retailer associations and sportsman/hunters/fisherman. The 2A ain't about shooting ducks and selling "sporting" arms, you fricken idiotic Fuddite morons!

Turners will never get another dime from me. NRA will now get CRPA membership dues as a donation.

jjperl
10-28-2007, 6:46 PM
Wow...just wow. playing politics with our rights :mad:

CCWFacts
10-28-2007, 7:28 PM
I think it's a toss-up between CA and Hawaii as to which will be the last state with right-to-carry. I'm also pretty convinced that if it ever comes to these two states, it will be in the form of a court order.

Me too, on both counts. HI has some strong Asian and monarchist cultural influences which indicate that being armed is a privilege of a ruling class. On top of that, they have a lot of South Pacific people who have a brawling culture, and CCW is not consistent with brawling.

Here in CA, bear in mind that a shall-issue bill went through the legislature (http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/4162.page) ten years ago and got out of committee. Today, most people are of the opinion that even getting such a bill out of committee is impossible. We've moved backwards on this. No one is willing to even introduce such a bill today!

My view:

The courts are our best shot right now. We should also all be members of the NRA and maybe start putting some of our own pressure on the NRA to start introducing some CCW reform bills. It doesn't have to be a 100% leap to shall issue. No, there are some things we can do as partial steps between here and there:

1. Introduce a bill requesting that the University of California do a study, to investigate our current system, reports of widespread abuse, and how our system compares with systems in other states, and public safety implications of our systems and systems in other states. The good news is there are about 40 shall-issue states to compare with, and some of them, like NV, are closely parallel to our law, but with no subjective GC requirement.

2. Raise the maximum allowed permit fees to something like $1,000, so police departments can, if they want to, use it as a revenue generator.

3. Allow the DoJ to create reciprocity with other states. I know, AG Brown wouldn't take advantage of that, but having that option existing on the books would be a good thing to have.

4. Other creative ideas: Create more issuing authorities. For example, like RI, we could add the AG as an issuing authority. Create a more favorable denials appeal process. Others?

Is there anything we, as NRA members, can do to get this issue more onto their radar in this state? I know that they are fighting a defensive battle right now, but it would be great to have something positive we could rally around. Getting a shall-issue bill introduced would open up the debate (again; it was open ten years ago) and be a focal point for activism.

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-28-2007, 7:40 PM
The politicians should be held up to the rope first, not those who are trying to get us back our 2nd Amendment rights by matters of compromise. How can we "divide and conquer" the enemy when our only discourse is to get rights back by compromise and piece meal?

tenpercentfirearms
10-28-2007, 8:03 PM
I still blame Arnold for this. I am well aware we have liberals making the laws in this state. That is why we elected him, to balance out their influence. He failed us plain and simple. We shouldn't have looked past the .50 BMG ban. He sold us out then and he sold us out now. I will never support him again, ever. I don't care if a democrat wins because what is the difference?

Now, that isn't to say you should let the CRPA and GOC go. I dropped my CRPA membership back in 2006 during the regulation period and they were dormant. I would recommend everyone send them a message to this link and ask them to respond. Let them know that a failure to address this issue is as good as admitting to it and they can never expect to see your dollars again.


They don't have an e-mail address so submit an article to them instead.
http://www.crpa.org/x_formview.asp?formid=1181838895

These guys have e-mail at least.
infogoc@gunownersca.com

Everyone send them something unique, we don't want form letters.

Can'thavenuthingood
10-28-2007, 9:17 PM
Raise the maximum allowed permit fees to something like $1,000, so police departments can, if they want to, use it as a revenue generator.



No, that ain't right. Then we'll have another divider. Depts. will charge the max as a revenue generator and I'll have to buy a right like a vowel on a agme show.

Vick

CCWFacts
10-28-2007, 9:24 PM
No, that ain't right. Then we'll have another divider. Depts. will charge the max as a revenue generator and I'll have to buy a right like a vowel on a agme show.

I know, it sucks, it's not right, etc, but looking at it practically: would you rather have a) a permit that costs $150, that you can't get or b) a permit that costs $1,000 that you can get or c) a permit that costs $150 that you can get.

We would all pick c) but c) doesn't happen in the major non-issuing departments (LA, SF, etc). So between a) and b) which would you pick? I would pick b), and realize that it is a compromise of principles, something which is a fact of life at various times.

mblat
10-28-2007, 9:30 PM
I know, it sucks, it's not right, etc, but looking at it practically: would you rather have a) a permit that costs $150, that you can't get or b) a permit that costs $1,000 that you can get or c) a permit that costs $150 that you can get.

We would all pick c) but c) doesn't happen in the major non-issuing departments (LA, SF, etc). So between a) and b) which would you pick? I would pick b), and realize that it is a compromise of principles, something which is a fact of life at various times.

IF I am not mistaken it takes about $500 now to get permit in CA already. Besides, $1000 is a lot of money for a lot of people. It will create system where only well-off could get a permit.
How is it different from what we have now? Besides it will also make much more difficult for people in rural countries to get them. $1000 in Taft and $1000 in Beverly Hills is very different money. For many people in rural countries who have permits now it may be sum they can't afford.

CCWFacts
10-28-2007, 9:38 PM
Right now, departments set their own fees, with a legislative cap (about $150 or so, I don't remember?). My suggestion is only to raise that cap. For people in rural areas that are already issuing easily, the authorities wouldn't raise the price, because they support CCW. In urban non-issuing areas, this would give them an incentive to issue (raise money). Right now those departments have no incentive to issue at all, so they don't issue at all. This would have no adverse impact on the currently-issuing areas, most of which charge less than the current cap right now. This would only benefit people in non-issuing areas, and wouldn't harm anyone. It would benefit higher-earners in those areas, and I don't like that, but this is a compromise I would accept at this point, because it might lead us to finally get to a system that is fair and accessible to everyone, regardless of income level.

The only thing that is bad about it is that it does, indeed, exclude low-earners from getting CCWs in those urban areas. That's unfair and unjust. But at least it would start opening things up. Right now, only VIPs can get CCWs in LA County. If PDs could charge up to $1,000, well, LA County has about 25 PDs and some of them could use some more cash I'm sure. It would get permits out there. Then the lower-earners might get upset about how unfair it is and start advocating to get the fee reduced.

It's a creative idea for incremental improvement.

ETD1010
10-29-2007, 12:36 AM
I still blame Arnold for this.

That's exactly how I feel. I don't care how politics and people being idiots fits into this.. Arnold signed it, and he shouldn't have.. and he KNEW he shouldn't have... but he did.... so it's HIS fault.. and all the dems that voted yes in the state legislature. . .

bwiese
10-29-2007, 12:45 AM
That's exactly how I feel. I don't care how politics and people being idiots fits into this.. Arnold signed it, and he shouldn't have.. and he KNEW he shouldn't have... but he did.... so it's HIS fault.. and all the dems that voted yes in the state legislature. . .

Yes, but the fact is
(1) it's politics;
(2) we had it 'in the bag', until
(3) Purported 'gunnies' screwed the pooch.

It's irrational and naive for us to believe that a trivial issue (relative to state budget issues, roads, and other big-news items, etc) amongst a thousand others is gonna get any analysis from Arnie himself - he'll rely on staff. Staff said "veto these". Someone (GOC etc) dragged a lot of unnecessary non-gun politics into the issue esp at the wrong time, Arnie felt cornered, and he said "F U". This otherwise woulda been way below his radar.

What this DOES show is that we can win when we are not screwed over by our own.

Silverback
10-29-2007, 8:22 AM
The politicians should be held up to the rope first, not those who are trying to get us back our 2nd Amendment rights by matters of compromise. How can we "divide and conquer" the enemy when our only discourse is to get rights back by compromise and piece meal?

I like the tar and feather concept myself. :D

berto
10-29-2007, 9:38 AM
1. Introduce a bill requesting that the University of California do a study, to investigate our current system, reports of widespread abuse, and how our system compares with systems in other states, and public safety implications of our systems and systems in other states. The good news is there are about 40 shall-issue states to compare with, and some of them, like NV, are closely parallel to our law, but with no subjective GC requirement.

2. Raise the maximum allowed permit fees to something like $1,000, so police departments can, if they want to, use it as a revenue generator.

3. Allow the DoJ to create reciprocity with other states. I know, AG Brown wouldn't take advantage of that, but having that option existing on the books would be a good thing to have.

4. Other creative ideas: Create more issuing authorities. For example, like RI, we could add the AG as an issuing authority. Create a more favorable denials appeal process. Others?


1. The academics will slant their findings to meet the needs of their fellow elitists in govt.

2. Selling our rights is a bad idea on a slippery slope. And don't believe for a second that some of the rural counties will keep permit fees lower than what's allowable, they need revenue too.

The rest is great but friendly court rulings are our best hope given the political atmosphere in this zoo.

AfricanHunter
10-29-2007, 11:41 AM
I still blame Arnold for this. I am well aware we have liberals making the laws in this state. That is why we elected him, to balance out their influence. He failed us plain and simple. We shouldn't have looked past the .50 BMG ban. He sold us out then and he sold us out now. I will never support him again, ever. I don't care if a democrat wins because what is the difference?

Now, that isn't to say you should let the CRPA and GOC go. I dropped my CRPA membership back in 2006 during the regulation period and they were dormant. I would recommend everyone send them a message to this link and ask them to respond. Let them know that a failure to address this issue is as good as admitting to it and they can never expect to see your dollars again.


They don't have an e-mail address so submit an article to them instead.
http://www.crpa.org/x_formview.asp?formid=1181838895

These guys have e-mail at least.
infogoc@gunownersca.com

Everyone send them something unique, we don't want form letters.

Done and Done.

ETD1010
10-29-2007, 8:34 PM
Yes, but the fact is
(1) it's politics;
(2) we had it 'in the bag', until
(3) Purported 'gunnies' screwed the pooch.

It's irrational and naive for us to believe that a trivial issue (relative to state budget issues, roads, and other big-news items, etc) amongst a thousand others is gonna get any analysis from Arnie himself - he'll rely on staff. Staff said "veto these". Someone (GOC etc) dragged a lot of unnecessary non-gun politics into the issue esp at the wrong time, Arnie felt cornered, and he said "F U". This otherwise woulda been way below his radar.

What this DOES show is that we can win when we are not screwed over by our own.

I guess I'm still kind of confused on HOW these groups screwed us over. . .

bwiese
10-29-2007, 8:55 PM
I guess I'm still kind of confused on HOW these groups screwed us over. . .

They:

(1) fought a fairly insignificant issue at a low level (the DFG commisioner) while related legislation was on the governor's desk. If there were no GOC-induced drama at the time, the governor could've use the existence of the DFG regulatory powers as being sufficient for the job that no new laws were necessary.

We know his legislative aides were already against both bills, and these bills are 'small enough' that they wouldn't've been on his radar when running the 7th largest economy in the world and his staff recommendations would likely have been the rule of the day.

(2) Created such a stink interfering in non-gun Repub party politics during bill signing season by driving Hollingsworth & crew to 'corne' Arnie for the specific low-level result (i.e, getting rid of Hanna from DFG commission).

(3) They won the battle (getting rid of Hanna) to lose the war (AB821 passed).

(4) #3 above was so onerous that Arnie bit back and also signed AB1471 as a 'Don't-F-With-Me' penalty. He saw the nastiness coming from "gun people" and has no idea of GOC vs CRPA vs NRA differences. The smell of one taints the other. (In normal situations one or the other or both bills might be signed or vetoed, but likely would not be 'cross pollinated'.)

Frankly we're lucky he signed the Katrina bill. That was pretty much a gimme, but GOC/CRPA put that one at risk too.

hoffmang
10-29-2007, 9:16 PM
Guys,

I've been traveling but I need to echo what Bill was saying. I saw with my own eyes CRPA not be there when we needed them on "detachable magazines." I watched them lie and attempt to smear an NRA rep who works hard for our rights. I then got exceedingly nervous when they went after the head of Fish and Game (a guy in our side's and Arnie's tent). I knew the NRA didn't do that because it would be political suicide... But these guys committed political suicide on all of our behalves.

We're going to start a real organization that only has gun owners interest at heart so that we can start effectively carrying off the two step that NRA and people like VCDL (The Virginia Citizen's Defense League) perform.

I'm travelling but I'll be tapping some of you on the shoulder to help get this going and then communicate it out to everyone.

It's past time that we took control of this problem.

-Gene

Joe Register
10-29-2007, 9:17 PM
So you are saying Arnold ignored the thousands and thousands of calls and emails because of one person? He bent over every gun owner in the state and you are enabling him?

Sorry if I disagree. Even if your line of reasoning is correct, it reflects poorly on the governor. He doesn't get a pass from me.

CCWFacts
10-29-2007, 9:32 PM
We're going to start a real organization that only has gun owners interest at heart so that we can start effectively carrying off the two step that NRA and people like VCDL (The Virginia Citizen's Defense League) perform.

My membership app and check will be on their way the instant you announce it.

oaklander
10-29-2007, 9:52 PM
Gene, let me know how I can help, when the time comes.

Guys,

I've been traveling but I need to echo what Bill was saying. I saw with my own eyes CRPA not be there when we needed them on "detachable magazines." I watched them lie and attempt to smear an NRA rep who works hard for our rights. I then got exceedingly nervous when they went after the head of Fish and Game (a guy in our side's and Arnie's tent). I knew the NRA didn't do that because it would be political suicide... But these guys committed political suicide on all of our behalves.

We're going to start a real organization that only has gun owners interest at heart so that we can start effectively carrying off the two step that NRA and people like VCDL (The Virginia Citizen's Defense League) perform.

I'm travelling but I'll be tapping some of you on the shoulder to help get this going and then communicate it out to everyone.

It's past time that we took control of this problem.

-Gene

derek@thepackingrat.net
10-29-2007, 9:54 PM
My membership app and check will be on their way the instant you announce it.

+1 :D

hoffmang
10-29-2007, 9:55 PM
So you are saying Arnold ignored the thousands and thousands of calls and emails because of one person? He bent over every gun owner in the state and you are enabling him?

Sorry if I disagree. Even if your line of reasoning is correct, it reflects poorly on the governor. He doesn't get a pass from me.

Joe,

1. Head of Fish and Game is an (R), even if he isn't playing by the rules.

2. CRPA is generally an (R) lobbyist.

3. CRPA forces Arnie to fire an (R) over the same issue that there is pending legislation about - legislation he was otherwise going to veto by using Fish and Game as the excuse.

4. Fired F&G guy leaves no aircover to veto.

5. Arnie sends a message that everyone on his side of the fence had better play nice or pay for it. We're paying for CRPA's screw ups. Message delivered. You can hate the messenger, but he's the one who got elected in a Democrat controlled state. He doesn't care if you like it. He cares if you're going to play ball and that's how politics really works.

-Gene

MudCamper
10-29-2007, 10:41 PM
First, some proof of all this would be really nice. So far it's just hearsay. Yes, I admit it's hearsay from a couple of the most reputable guys around (Bill and Gene), but it's still hearsay. How can we KNOW that this was Arnold's way of sending this message, and for this reason? Did he himself make such statements? Are there records of it?

Second, this does not releave Arnold from his responsibility. No matter what the politics, HE signed the bill. It is HIS final responsibility to do the right thing or not. If this was his reason for signing horribly bad anti-gun bills into law, then he is nothing but a political weasel.

Kestryll
10-29-2007, 10:50 PM
We're going to start a real organization that only has gun owners interest at heart so that we can start effectively carrying off the two step that NRA and people like VCDL (The Virginia Citizen's Defense League) perform.

I'm travelling but I'll be tapping some of you on the shoulder to help get this going and then communicate it out to everyone.

It's past time that we took control of this problem.

-Gene

Say when Gene, we're here and we're in.

bulgron
10-29-2007, 11:24 PM
Guys,

I've been traveling but I need to echo what Bill was saying. I saw with my own eyes CRPA not be there when we needed them on "detachable magazines." I watched them lie and attempt to smear an NRA rep who works hard for our rights. I then got exceedingly nervous when they went after the head of Fish and Game (a guy in our side's and Arnie's tent). I knew the NRA didn't do that because it would be political suicide... But these guys committed political suicide on all of our behalves.

We're going to start a real organization that only has gun owners interest at heart so that we can start effectively carrying off the two step that NRA and people like VCDL (The Virginia Citizen's Defense League) perform.

I'm travelling but I'll be tapping some of you on the shoulder to help get this going and then communicate it out to everyone.

It's past time that we took control of this problem.

-Gene

Let me know how I can help.

bwiese
10-30-2007, 12:52 AM
First, some proof of all this would be really nice. So far it's just hearsay. Yes, I admit it's hearsay from a couple of the most reputable guys around (Bill and Gene), but it's still hearsay. How can we KNOW that this was Arnold's way of sending this message, and for this reason? Did he himself make such statements? Are there records of it?

Dude, get real. This ain't student gov't at the local JC. No politician explains or logs their ulterior motives. There's always cover.

It's never, "Hi, I'm Gov Arnie, I voted for microstamping to punish guys because they kinda forced my hand to kick a guy in the *** during end of session negotiations." He's always gonna have a good reason and the 2nd or 3rd tier reasons are never announced and rarely discussed even in inner circles.

If you think that microstamping or tiny little gun bills from the opposing party are even on his radar, you've gotta be kidding. He's looking at roads & bridges, budgets and healthcare. Everything else is done by legislative aides.

Leg aids prepare both signing and veto statements and recommended action for every bill. These aides figure the political costs/benefits, budgetary matters, and effect on political future.

Yes GOC's Sam Paredes will readily admit to driving the Hollingsworth letter about Hanna. After all, Sam needs to show some 'red meat' activity levels to justify his existence.

Big Dogs like the governor don't like being screwed with by idiots and this is how they send payback.

mikehaas
10-30-2007, 10:31 AM
I guess I'm still kind of confused on HOW these groups screwed us over. . .
To accomplish something in politics, one must spend political capitol, a limited resource. Now pretend you're a gun lobbyist at the capitol (it seems many do these days.) When you ask the governor to veto AB 821 and ab 1471, it goes something like this...

GUV: Arrgh, vee are zo zorry. You haf already spent your political capitol paying back a personal grudge - you ahsked me to fire a commisioner, remember? Vell, you got vat you asked for. Now because of zat, other people haf to get vat zey ahsked for. Yes, ve vould haf vetoed those bad gun bills, but firing zat guy has ahngered ze other side, zo now zey must get zomething too.

YOU: But my group never asked you to fire anyone?

GUV: Arrgh! Don't be zo ztupid! You "gun guys" need to get your story straight because ze Guvernor of Caleefornya cannot keep score among you! Zere is only vun "gun lobby". I gave you vat you ahsked for, zo now shut up! And remember rule number vun - ze most important vote is - ze next vun!

YOU: But MICROSTAMPING and LEAD AMMO BANS were *MUCH* more important than firing any commisioner!

GUV: Zen you should haf thought of zat before you ahsked me to do ze other! Mein Gott, I just did vat you ahsked me to do!??! I can only do zo much for you!!!

mcubed4130
10-30-2007, 10:40 AM
To accomplish something in politics, one must spend political capitol, a limited resource. Now pretend you're a gun lobbyist at the capitol (it seems many do these days.) When you ask the governor to veto AB 821 and ab 1471, it goes something like this...

GUV: Arrgh, vee are zo zorry. You haf already spent your political capitol paying back a personal grudge - you ahsked me to fire a commisioner, remember? Vell, you got vat you asked for. Now because of zat, other people haf to get vat zey ahsked for. Yes, ve vould haf vetoed those bad gun bills, but firing zat guy has ahngered ze other side, zo now zey must get zomething too.

YOU: But my group never asked you to fire anyone?

GUV: Arrgh! Don't be zo ztupid! You "gun guys" need to get your story straight because ze Guvernor of Caleefornya cannot keep score among you! Zere is only vun "gun lobby". I gave you vat you ahsked for, zo now shut up! And remember rule number vun - ze most important vote is - ze next vun!

YOU: But MICROSTAMPING and LEAD AMMO BANS were *MUCH* more important than firing any commisioner!

GUV: Zen you should haf thought of zat before you ahsked me to do ze other! Mein Gott, I just did vat you ahsked me to do!??! I can only do zo much for you!!!

:rofl2: Nice recap.

-M3

AfricanHunter
10-30-2007, 10:48 AM
Why is there still a link to the CRPA on the Calguns homepage?

Edit: I'm in too

1911_sfca
10-30-2007, 11:09 AM
We're going to start a real organization that only has gun owners interest at heart so that we can start effectively carrying off the two step that NRA and people like VCDL (The Virginia Citizen's Defense League) perform.

Sign me up!

Can'thavenuthingood
10-30-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally Posted by hoffmang http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=813135#post813135)
We're going to start a real organization

I'm in.

Vick

dfletcher
10-30-2007, 12:09 PM
To accomplish something in politics, one must spend political capitol, a limited resource. Now pretend you're a gun lobbyist at the capitol (it seems many do these days.) When you ask the governor to veto AB 821 and ab 1471, it goes something like this...

GUV: Arrgh, vee are zo zorry. You haf already spent your political capitol paying back a personal grudge - you ahsked me to fire a commisioner, remember? Vell, you got vat you asked for. Now because of zat, other people haf to get vat zey ahsked for. Yes, ve vould haf vetoed those bad gun bills, but firing zat guy has ahngered ze other side, zo now zey must get zomething too.

YOU: But my group never asked you to fire anyone?

GUV: Arrgh! Don't be zo ztupid! You "gun guys" need to get your story straight because ze Guvernor of Caleefornya cannot keep score among you! Zere is only vun "gun lobby". I gave you vat you ahsked for, zo now shut up! And remember rule number vun - ze most important vote is - ze next vun!

YOU: But MICROSTAMPING and LEAD AMMO BANS were *MUCH* more important than firing any commisioner!

GUV: Zen you should haf thought of zat before you ahsked me to do ze other! Mein Gott, I just did vat you ahsked me to do!??! I can only do zo much for you!!!

Nicely put - there is much truth in your humor. And it points out that an issue is not always the determining factor really, it's the sytem of favors and public presentation of a balancing act that often carries the day.

chico.cm
10-30-2007, 12:15 PM
Gene,
I am anxiously awaiting your announcement of the new .org that will vigorously fight for the 2A ONLY!

M. D. Van Norman
10-30-2007, 12:34 PM
There is no chance, I assume, that we were just defeated?

leelaw
10-30-2007, 2:55 PM
Gee, CRPA just sent me a renewal notice tosay. I'll send it back, but It'll contain a nasty letter of condemnation rather than a check.

Anthonysmanifesto
10-30-2007, 3:25 PM
Gee, CRPA just sent me a renewal notice tosay. I'll send it back, but It'll contain a nasty letter of condemnation rather than a check.

when you send it back blank , ask them the following:

1)why CRPA members aren't allowed to vote for their board members?

2) WHO is the executive Director? you might be surprised...

3) ask for a copy of their budget and expenditures for ANY year ... let alone last year.

4) ask them who is the government affairs director

5) ask them if they allow their government affairs director to take on other clients

6) ask them if you can be on the board of directors.

leelaw
10-30-2007, 3:27 PM
when you send it back blank , ask them the following:

1)why CRPA members arent alllowed to vote for their board members?

2) WHO is the executive Director? you mught be surprised...

3) ask for a copy of their budget and expenditures for ANY year ... let alone last year.

4) ask them who is the government affairs director

5) ask them if they allow their government affairs director to take on other clients

6) ask them if you can be on the board of directors.

The letter told them to cease all correspondence with me because I wish to sever all relations with their organization, so I'll let the next angry former CRPA member send off those questions. :D

Bad Voodoo
10-30-2007, 3:35 PM
We're going to start a real organization that only has gun owners interest at heart so that we can start effectively carrying off the two step that NRA and people like VCDL (The Virginia Citizen's Defense League) perform.

Our differing political and socio-economic opinions aside, I'd be happy to participate in something that focuses specifically on our 2A rights. Count me in.

-voodoo

MrTuffPaws
10-30-2007, 3:41 PM
Hold on. I read the OP and correct me if I am wrong, but is states that GOC etc. went after the Head of Fish and Game and forced his resignation. Then goes on to state these actions are the reason for the microstamp and lead free bills got signed.

Sorry, but correlation does not equal causation. Can you provide direct proof as to why the actions of GOC cause the Governor to sign the two bills?

Sorry, but I read this and it seems like nothing more than some NRA fueled rant against GOC.

MrTuffPaws
10-30-2007, 3:48 PM
I hate to do this, but by the time I replied the thread was 10 pages and did not seem to cover my questions about the original post. Can the author of the OP answer my question.

Hold on. I read the OP and correct me if I am wrong, but is states that GOC etc. went after the Head of Fish and Game and forced his resignation. Then goes on to state these actions are the reason for the microstamp and lead free bills got signed.

Sorry, but correlation does not equal causation. Can you provide direct proof as to why the actions of GOC cause the Governor to sign the two bills?

Sorry, but I read this and it seems like nothing more than some NRA fueled rant against GOC.

leelaw
10-30-2007, 3:51 PM
Here's an anti-gunner who even agrees http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=73716

MrTuffPaws
10-30-2007, 3:58 PM
Here's an anti-gunner who even agrees http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=73716

Agreeing with an opinion is far from proof. So basically, they are stating that Arnold signed the bills out of spite? I am hard pressed to agree, but nothing really surprises me anymore. I would still like to see more meat to this.

I would really like to be able to separate lobby group rivalry from the truth.

PIRATE14
10-30-2007, 4:06 PM
Agreeing with an opinion is far from proof. So basically, they are stating that Arnold signed the bills out of spite? I am hard pressed to agree, but nothing really surprises me anymore. I would still like to see more meat to this.

I would really like to be able to separate lobby group rivalry from the truth.

If there was ever really any hard proof about all the bull**** that goes on in American politics........they'd all be in jail.......;)

dfletcher
10-30-2007, 4:15 PM
Agreeing with an opinion is far from proof. So basically, they are stating that Arnold signed the bills out of spite? I am hard pressed to agree, but nothing really surprises me anymore. I would still like to see more meat to this.

I would really like to be able to separate lobby group rivalry from the truth.

I would not describe it as spite, I think it's much more routine that.

The whole affair reminds me of a story told by New York Governor (and first Roman Catholic to run for the presidency) Al Smith. As Governor, Smith was presiding over yet another smoke filled room meeting of state Reps, Senators and assorted politcos when he summed up the essence of those annual back room dealings where budgets, bills and favors were settled. "Gentlemen" he announced, "We all know someone is going to get screwed - we're here to decide who".

bwiese
10-30-2007, 4:16 PM
Sorry, but correlation does not equal causation. Can you provide direct proof as to why the actions of GOC cause the Governor to sign the two bills?

Sorry, but I read this and it seems like nothing more than some NRA fueled rant against GOC.

It's called hardball. If I burn you in some kinda deal where you are grudgingly forced to do something, are you gonna wanna do biz with me on something else, or are you gonna reward me in some other area?

Hell, no.

No one at the Gov's level gives a rat's *** about microstamping or lead ammo.
The gov (and many of his staff) prob don't know at all any difference btwn NRA vs GOC vs CRPA etc.: it's just "the gun people".

We KNOW the gov's leg staff recommended vetos on both.

But when you corner someone for some reason, don't expect them not to bite for another. Arnie got his knickers twisted in a knot by being forced (for party reasons) to kick Hanna. He untwisted them by kicking us in the teeth.
That's the only way you send a msg, "don't F with me."

I am most certain the NRA would LOVE to have some other effective organizations like GOC & CRPA covering their six - as long as they are led by effective skilled people there who don't have side lobbying jobs doing other things or lobbying against RKBA (like CRPA's support for mail-order ammo ban and for SB15).

I'm certain Calif. NRA leadership would see multiple gun orgs moving in sync, planning deliberately and with coordinated skill, to be a real boon - as sometimes "NRA" can be a bit radioactive to the rabid ones in the Capitol.

You're demanding 'proof' that doesn't exist. Which would you expect to hear...

(1) "Today I signed AB1471 and AB821 to kick some folks in the teeth because they [or some faction thereof] p*ssed me off a month or so ago and I had to give in to some ranting & raving of theirs to get some party support for budgets. But now it's Payback Time....."

or...

(2) "Today I signed AB1471 and AB821. The former bill gives law enforcement tools to help investigate crimes while not affecting the rights of gun owners. The latter bill helps preserve our environment and helps assure the continued existence of the magnificent California condor."

chickenfried
10-30-2007, 4:21 PM
What an internet forum posting not good enough for you??? What a doubting thomas.

MrTuffPaws
10-30-2007, 4:29 PM
What an internet forum posting not good enough for you??? What a doubting thomas.

BAWAHAHAHAHA! :D

Too true. I would just like to maybe ask for proof once and a while.

Kestryll
10-30-2007, 4:33 PM
Two threads, same topic, same questions, side by side.

Thread merge!

Mute
10-30-2007, 7:33 PM
Proof that a politician acted in a sleazy manner? You don't need proof for that. It's an immutable law of nature.

hoffmang
10-30-2007, 7:51 PM
Those who doubt that this is how it went down are being naive.

I have a simple question for the doubters. Why did anyone force the head of the Department of Fish and Game out at the same time the lead ammo bill was headed to the Governor's desk? Can you come up with any scenario that that would be a good idea?

-Gene

tenpercentfirearms
10-30-2007, 9:42 PM
All I know is Arnold screwed us. He will never get my support again, ever. He wants to teach me a lesson? It is time I teach him a lesson; he works for me. If he wanted to stand up to someone he shouldn't have fired his DFG guy, met with the legislators, and told them to keep their mouths shut. Instead he sold us out. Screw Arnold.

dfletcher
10-30-2007, 10:46 PM
Any chance Hanna publicly supported AB821 knowing that would send CRPA & others into attack mode, resulting in the Gov striking back by signing 821 & 1471?

My paranoia runs deep - could Hanna be a RINO in league with the Bradys? :pinch:

Joe Register
10-30-2007, 10:49 PM
Why did Arnold sign the .50 ban then? What was that "payback" for?

The buck stops with him.

CCWFacts
10-30-2007, 11:28 PM
Why did Arnold sign the .50 ban then? What was that "payback" for?

The buck stops with him.

Gun rights activists here have to start using their brains to figure out what is important, and what is not, or we will become irrelevant. We have to start being smart. That means being smart about not demanding the head of a Republican F&G director who didn't do anything to us. This also means realizing that some bans are more important and have broader effects than others.

50 BMG was the target of a large hysteria campaign at the time. AB 50 affected only a very small number of gun owners, and it's totally full of loop holes.

We're not the strong side in this situation. Acting like we're the strong side, when we are not, does not produce the optimal results.

If this were Montana, where we could get rid of politicians who sponsor bans, then yeah, I would say anyone who signs any ban should be shown no mercy, but here in CA we need to use our brains more.

Mute
10-30-2007, 11:28 PM
All I know is Arnold screwed us. He will never get my support again, ever. He wants to teach me a lesson? It is time I teach him a lesson; he works for me. If he wanted to stand up to someone he shouldn't have fired his DFG guy, met with the legislators, and told them to keep their mouths shut. Instead he sold us out. Screw Arnold.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Benedict Arnold isn't some simpleton. He knew exactly what he was doing. And I know what I'll be doing when I vote his worthless hide out of office and refuse to buy anything associated with him in the future.

bulgron
10-30-2007, 11:57 PM
All I know is Arnold screwed us. He will never get my support again, ever.

I just love these sort of absolute statements.

Arnold is term-limited out of the governorship; he can never run again.

Rumor has it that Arnold wants to run for US Senator next.

The dominant political party in this state likes to put up politicians like Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein for Senate seats. Even if those two politicians don't run again (and I think they might not), Arnold could very well be running against someone just like them.

So if you had a choice between a turn-coat like Arnold, or a full-on statist gun grabber like Diane Feinstein, would you still be willing to live by that statement?

Me, I'm unwilling to say that I'll never vote for Arnold ever again. However, I might be willing to exhibit my displeasure with Arnold during the appropriate primary season. It all depends on who he might be running against.

CCWFacts
10-31-2007, 12:09 AM
Boxer will run again. Arnie will run against her. Arnie will demolish anyone who runs against him in the repub primary for Senate. So it will be Arnie vs. Boxer, and that will be a competitive race. Remember Dick Mountjoy? He didn't even campaign. The Repubs had a hard time recruiting anyone to even volunteer for that ticket, because the kind of people who are "leadership" types don't ever want to be in guaranteed-loss type of positions.

I'll be voting for Arnie when he runs against Boxer. We have a chance of replacing a hard-core statist ban-all-guns nutcase with a gun rights moderate.

I know a lot of people will hate me for even suggesting that it's possible to be a gun rights moderate because rights are absolute, etc etc, but here in CA, a gun rights moderate is the best we're going to get.

Arnie is generally a good politician and I think he's one of the best governors this state has ever had.

And yes I am disappointed with his signing these bills. I wrote him tons of letters. Whatever.

bwiese
10-31-2007, 12:13 AM
I know a lot of people will hate me for even suggesting that it's possible to be a gun rights moderate because rights are absolute, etc etc, but here in CA, a gun rights moderate is the best we're going to get.

Arnie is generally a good politician and I think he's one of the best governors this state has ever had.

And yes I am disappointed with his signing these bills. I wrote him tons of letters. Whatever.

This is true. Even if Arnie were much much more anti-gun and were elected to Senate, judges he'd propose/vote on would likely be RKBA-prone.

The upcoming Presidential election - in relation to gun rights - will be primarily about appointing new members to the Supremes. That will be our most important task - more than having the Prez support any specific law.

We need to have add'l Supremes in place post-Parker/Heller.

There's a chance for our Janice Rogers Brown to move on up ;)

ghettoshecky
10-31-2007, 1:14 AM
There's a chance for our Janice Rogers Brown to move on up ;)

we can only hope :D

tenpercentfirearms
10-31-2007, 5:50 AM
So if you had a choice between a turn-coat like Arnold, or a full-on statist gun grabber like Diane Feinstein, would you still be willing to live by that statement?
I have already thought about this and I will vote for someone else even if I know Feinstein will win. There comes a point where you have to at least try to hold people accountable.

If it makes you feel better Feinstein and whoever her liberal partner might be are always going to be balanced out by the other 98 senators and we can always blame the rest of America for letting the senate go liberal. Either way, there comes a point where you don't keep licking the hand of your masters. Arnold screwed us and I am going to hold him accountable with my vote. Otherwise, we are just accepting his actions and there are no consequences. I am choosing not to accept his signing of these two bills. Some of you might be willing to do that. That is your choice, I am making mine.

stator
10-31-2007, 6:08 AM
Bill, you certainly understand the drama regarding the lead ban using the Condor endangerment as the driving wedge, but you really failed to tie that into micro-stamping.

I can understand your dislike on the bylaws of the CRPA as I share the same feeling, but what you are failing to see is the forrest from that one tree.

There has been over a decade of attempts to ban firearms and sporting use of these through banning lead as hazard to the environment. One of the ranges in your area came under this direct attack to close it down. The reason was lead poisoning to the water table. Those groups you mentioned were there to help fight it. Result was the range is now open.

The political fight here is that these groups believe that if lead banning is done for the Condor issue, it will quickly morph into a lead ban across the board for all firearms sports throughout the state, regardless of the Condor. In other words, the anti's will seize the initiative, ban all lead ammo, thus driving up ammo prices to where guns are effectively banned.

mikehaas
10-31-2007, 9:14 AM
Hold on. I read the OP and correct me if I am wrong, but is states that GOC etc. went after the Head of Fish and Game and forced his resignation. Then goes on to state these actions are the reason for the microstamp and lead free bills got signed.

Sorry, but correlation does not equal causation. Can you provide direct proof as to why the actions of GOC cause the Governor to sign the two bills?

Sorry, but I read this and it seems like nothing more than some NRA fueled rant against GOC.
Funny you should say that because NRA doesn't attack these wannabees groups but attack is (clearly) normal S.O.P. for the wannabees.

And who could ever imagine CRPA would oppose NRA's legislative positions! After all, they are the "NRA affiliate" in California and by contract, are NOT ALLOWED do deviate from NRA's legislative positions. But they do all the time. For example, why did we see CRPA SUPPORT PETA in 2006 with the dog tethering bill? here, look under the list of supporters (http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_1551-1600/sb_1578_cfa_20060905_135024_sen_floor.html) - there's CRPA in cahoots with PETA, the Doris Day Animal League, Dogs Deserve Better, East Bay Animal Advocates, Hopalong Animal Rescue, In Defense of Animals, Last Chance for Animals, Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, Contra Costa County (co-sponsor of MICROSTAMPING) AND MANY OTHER ANTI-HUNTING, ANTI-FREEDOM LEFTIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Now, consider this... every year this BS goes on - EVERY YEAR - has been for a lOOONG time - you just never hear about it. And when someone tries to inform you, you shoot the messenger.

In CRPA and GOC you have 2 renegade cowboy organizations that serve masters other than gun-owners who, every year, go their own way, don't cooperate with NRA, screw gun owners and hunters and support interests and fornicate with the worst political elements. They pull back-room deals JUST LIKE BILL HAS TOLD YOU ABOUT all the time.

I've had ZERO use for GOC (or GOA) since they heartily endorsed gun confiscator Republican A.G. Dan Lungren for governor just a few months *AFTER* he triggered the SKS sporter confiscation fiasco by administrative fiat (buddying up to his anti-gun friends for the election). THIS IS GOC'S IDEA OF A CANDIDATE TO SEND YOUR RKBA DOLLARS TO...
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/Lindex.html
(Don't miss Dan Lungren's Gun Control record, linked at the bottom of that page :-)

The diversion of your hard-earned RKBA dollars to treacherous (or at best INCOMPETENT) "pro-gun" entities like this is the scandal of the RKBA industry. NRA can't fight it without losing their own credibility or wasting resources. There is no one but loyal activists like Bill to spread the word about this kind of corruption.

And it *IS* corruption in the blackest sense of the word - IGNORE IT AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

Mike

MudCamper
10-31-2007, 9:58 AM
If this is how the game is played, then why did we even bother to make so many calls and write so many letters to the gov? I know I won't be bothering to call or write him again. It's a waste of time. He's a weasel. I'll just be voting against him in any election.

bwiese
10-31-2007, 9:59 AM
Bill, you certainly understand the drama regarding the lead ban using the Condor endangerment as the driving wedge, but you really failed to tie that into micro-stamping.

Stator, it was simple 'bite back'. Two "gun people" bills came along, about the same time drama was added by forcing Arnie for party reasons to throw a bone to Hollingsworth & crew and kick Hanna.

The directly related condor bill of course got screwed. But it was apparent enough to cause "leakage" over to the microstamping bill.


I can understand your dislike on the bylaws of the CRPA as I share the same feeling, but what you are failing to see is the forrest from that one tree.

There has been over a decade of attempts to ban firearms and sporting use of these through banning lead as hazard to the environment. One of the ranges in your area came under this direct attack to close it down. The reason was lead poisoning to the water table. Those groups you mentioned were there to help fight it. Result was the range is now open.

Yes, so they helped in these specific instances - but it's winning a battle vs war.

The bottom line is that GOC+CRPA doesn't know how to play at the right time - or plays for its own reasons.


=
The political fight here is that these groups believe that if lead banning is done for the Condor issue, it will quickly morph into a lead ban across the board for all firearms sports throughout the state, regardless of the Condor. In other words, the anti's will seize the initiative, ban all lead ammo, thus driving up ammo prices to where guns are effectively banned.

Oh, I heartily agree with you. We have zero difference of opinion - this stuff really has nothing to do with lead, safety, etc - it's back-door gun control.

The Bradys have been delving into this crap with the EWG (Environmental Working Group) for some time. I'd expect to see some kinda OSHA-style push for indoor range workers eventually too.

kb1
10-31-2007, 10:49 AM
The Guv. by now must realize by now he has urked his base constituents, even though he was forced into a position of giving the repubs. the finger. Gun owners have a long memory, hell even congress won't touch a new an new AWB-at least not yet. So does this now force him into a position of passing real pro-gun legislation, and not just piece-male? It seems to me like if he wants to run for the senate he is going to have to throw pro-gunners a rather large bone. People will vote for Boxer just out of spite. Even though Boxer is a rabid anti, she is looked at as a left wing kook by most of the senate, and you know what you're getting with her. Of course my analysis could be totally off base and the Guv. could probably care less about pro-gunners and not giving this much thought at all. So has he ironically backed himself into a corner and now has to show that he he supports a pro-gun stance because he basically gave his own party the "bird"?

bulgron
10-31-2007, 10:52 AM
I have already thought about this and I will vote for someone else even if I know Feinstein will win. There comes a point where you have to at least try to hold people accountable.

If it makes you feel better Feinstein and whoever her liberal partner might be are always going to be balanced out by the other 98 senators and we can always blame the rest of America for letting the senate go liberal. Either way, there comes a point where you don't keep licking the hand of your masters. Arnold screwed us and I am going to hold him accountable with my vote. Otherwise, we are just accepting his actions and there are no consequences. I am choosing not to accept his signing of these two bills. Some of you might be willing to do that. That is your choice, I am making mine.

I fully understand and respect what you're saying, but I wish you'd rethink this for a moment from a more pragmatic point of view.

If Arnold goes up against Boxer in 2010, then we will have a choice between a moderate on guns, and a hardline anti-gunner statist liberal. Not supporting Arnold in that election is tantamount to telling the hardline anti-gunners in this state that they can get away with their unconstitutional activities. The single most important thing in that election will be to punish the true anti-gunner, not the wishy-washy girly-man moderate.

The time to register our disapproval with Arnold is in the Republican primaries. Assuming the increasingly-lame Republicans in this state can manage to find a true supporter of the 2A to run in that primary, then we need to band behind that person, thereby making sure the weaselnator doesn't advance to the general election. This all by itself will send a hard message to (at least Republican) politicians: screw with our gun rights and see your political career damaged forever.

But in the general election, we need to support the politician who is most supportive of our 2A rights. If that politician happens to be Arnold, then so be it.

When things are as broken as they are in CA, sometimes you can't go for the home run. Sometimes, you've got to accept that a few intermediate steps will be required to return CA's government to something that is within spitting distance of the constitution. This might mean making compromises so as to push forward in the big picture.

So I say, explain girly-man's error to him in the primaries, but if his star power is enough to overcome that, then we've got to grudgingly support him. The alternative will be Boxer, who is no kind of a friend to a free people.

</soapbox>

bulgron
10-31-2007, 11:03 AM
People will vote for Feinstein just out of spite. Even though Feinstein is a rabid anti, she is looked at as a left wing kook by most of the senate, and you know what you're getting with her.


Boxer is up for re-election in 2010, and has announced that she plans to run. Feinstein's current term will be up in 2012. She'll be 80 then, so it isn't clear to me that she will run.

In any case, if Arnold runs for the Senate, his first opportunity will be against Boxer in 2010. So that's the fight we need to be thinking about here, at least where Arnold is concerned.

Of course my analysis could be totally off base and the Guv. could probably care less about pro-gunners and not giving this much thought at all. So has he ironically backed himself into a corner and now has to show that he he supports a pro-gun stance because he basically gave his own party the "bird"?

If he cares about the gun vote, he has backed himself into a corner. But it isn't clear to me that he does care about the gun vote. California gun owners are so disorganized and so weak that we must look like anything but a threat to the guy. No one to blame there but ourselves.

Besides, Arnold can't do anything unless a strong pro-gun bill is sent to him. With politics being what they are in this state, I'm not holding my breath.

Anthonysmanifesto
10-31-2007, 11:09 AM
I think the likelihood of Arnold going from Movie star to Governor of the largest state to US Senator , (one of one hundred), and being held accountbale to a party boss and the Senate majority leader is far fetched.

his lifestyle and power would be so diminished , sitting in endless comittee hearings, being the junior senator from California in the minority party, its antithetical to his persona.

Its fun to talk about, but not as fun for a 60 year old Icon/megastar.

It's early, but thats my bet. Boxer is safe.

Fjold
10-31-2007, 11:16 AM
I think the likelihood of Arnold going from Movie star to Governor of the largest state to US Senator , (one of one hundred), and being held accountbale to a party boss and the Senate majority leader is far fetched.

his lifestyle and power would be so diminished , sitting in endless comittee hearings, being the junior senator from California in the minority party, its antithetical to his persona.

Its fun to talk about, but not as fun for a 60 year old Icon/megastar.

It's early, but thats my bet. Boxer is safe.


What were the odds that a movie star would go to Governor of the largest state, to retirement and then on to President of the United States?

CCWFacts
10-31-2007, 11:25 AM
If Arnold goes up against Boxer in 2010,

We should count on it (side note: Feinstein is too old to run again IMHO).

The single most important thing in that election will be to punish the true anti-gunner, not the wishy-washy girly-man moderate.

That's right. A team of genetic engineering scientists from the 24th century couldn't build a more rabid anti-gunner than Boxer. She's the one we must punish.

When things are as broken as they are in CA, sometimes you can't go for the home run. Sometimes, you've got to accept that a few intermediate steps will be required to return CA's government to something that is within spitting distance of the constitution. This might mean making compromises so as to push forward in the big picture.

Some sanity among the gun owners! Good way to put it. I have gotten very badly flamed in the past for suggesting that the reality in this state is not consistent with a hardline absolute stance on gun rights. We all need to get comfortable with the idea of "gun rights moderates" if we're going to get anywhere in this state. And Arnie is a gun rights moderate.

I personally want to be able to own and carry full-auto weapons if I want to, but that is neither here nor there because the real battle we need to win is somewhere else.

Gun rights moderates.

bulgron
10-31-2007, 11:39 AM
Some sanity among the gun owners! Good way to put it. I have gotten very badly flamed in the past for suggesting that the reality in this state is not consistent with a hardline absolute stance on gun rights.

Have you been flamed for that in the past? That's unfortunate, but hardly surprising. I started looking into CA gun politics early this year in an effort to understand why there's no real shall-issue CCW movement in this state. The answer is that the average CA gun owner is, politically speaking, a complete idiot. We've been divided and conquered, and no one noticed. There's still a majority belief amongst gun owners in this state that we should behave as if we're living in Arizona where gun ownership reigns supreme.

But the reality is that we're living in one of the top two or top three most anti-gun states in the union. In order to fix that, we're going to have to be tenacious, pragmatic, make compromises when they move us forward, and above all politically smart. Out of that list, the only thing we've really got going for us is the tenacious part.

There's a long, long way to go before we can even begin to return sanity to the gun laws this state.

M. D. Van Norman
10-31-2007, 11:45 AM
You know what though? We are rapidly running out of things to compromise away.

CCWFacts
10-31-2007, 12:00 PM
You know what though? We are rapidly running out of things to compromise away.

The kind of compromises I'm talking about are the kind of compromises that happen in chess. You give up pieces to get into a better position. That's the only way you win the game. Like getting set up to lose your bishop so that the opponent finds himself set up to lose his queen five moves later.

That's what is called being smart. That's why chess masters are smart. That's something California gun owners should start thinking about. Chess isn't about keeping all your pieces. It's about losing them in the right order to achieve victory. In my personal opinion (which may or may not be right), checkmate for us would be creating a culture of armed self-defense, and to me that means CCW issuance. For the other side, checkmate means destroying the shooting culture, as they have done in New York City, Chicago and various other places. Both of these checkmate scenarios are irreversible final victory type of outcomes. No chess master says, "I won't give a single pawn up no matter what, and if I have a choice between saving a pawn now and winning a checkmate later, I'm keeping the pawn!" And that's the logic that most gun rights people on this forum are using and it's going to cost us the game. If we treat this like a boxing match, then we will find out that we are the Gary Coleman and the other side is Mike Tyson in this state. I would rather be in a weak position in a chess match than in a boxing match.

Continuing this analogy, we should have thought of AB50 and the lead ammo ban as pawns and asked, how could these get us in a better position to achieve what we really want?

And yes I have been very badly flamed for making such suggestions. People calling me "Zumbo" and so on. Very misguided. Zumbo made comments about certain guns not being needed or whatever. I'm saying I'm willing to give up certain pawns to achieve victory. Very different ideas.

And if this were Arizona, I wouldn't be saying any of these things. In Arizona we can play a blunt game of "you do bad, you get punished". Arizona is like a boxing match between Mike Tyson and Gary Coleman. California is not Arizona. If we have brains we'll see that we are in a chess game, in a weak position, and ask ourselves what can we do to set up victory, rather than thinking about knock-out punches all the time. If we treat this like a boxing match, we'll find that we are the Gary Coleman in a ring vs. Mike Tyson.

M. D. Van Norman
10-31-2007, 12:47 PM
The problem is that our king, a few pawns, and maybe a knight (that most people are too afraid to use) are all we have left.

CCWFacts
10-31-2007, 1:00 PM
The problem is that our king, a few pawns, and maybe a knight (that most people are too afraid to use) are all we have left.

That's right. That means we have to be even more smart about how we use them. If you give Garry Kasparov a king, a few pawns and a knight, and put him against an amateur player with a full set of pieces, Garry is going to win. We need to be Garry Kasparov. Instead we are trying to be Gary Coleman in a boxing match against Mike Tyson and the end result is AB 1471, for starters.

They are playing smart. They already went through this dumb-and-stupid phase a few years ago when they tried that ban-all-handguns referendum, which crashed and burned. They reassessed after that and said, "ok, well, if we can destroy shooting culture in this state we'll achieve our goals. We can destroy it by narrowing down the availability of handguns, putting up more barriers, constantly adding things to the banned list, creating complicated technical restrictions that no one can understand properly." So that's the game they have been playing.

And whenever I say this I get flamed, I get called nasty names, people tell me I'm trying to destroy their rights, etc.

We should be Garry Kasparov in a chess match. Instead we are choosing to be Gary Coleman in a boxing match.

chickenfried
10-31-2007, 1:10 PM
Personally, I feel it's more akin to a game of connect four.

M. D. Van Norman
10-31-2007, 2:59 PM
Okay, Kasparov, what’s your strategy? Keep letting Republicans know that gun owners will always re-elect them because “they aren’t as bad as the Democrats”? Please tell me you have something better than that.

CavTrooper
10-31-2007, 3:44 PM
I always thought that comprimise was "give a little, get a little". Ive seen lots of giving, please tell me what we have got in return?

CCWFacts
10-31-2007, 3:52 PM
I always thought that comprimise was "give a little, get a little".

It can mean that and that can benefit us. For example, what if we attached to the lead ban something else that expanded the allowed hunting days? We give up lead ammo, we get more hunting days? That's an example of give a little, get a little, that some people might regard as a win-win. (I'm not a hunter so maybe extra hunting days are not something hunters care about, I'm just making up an example.)

Ive seen lots of giving, please tell me what we have got in return?

We're not getting anything in return and that's my point. The reason we're not getting anything is because instead of figuring out smart things to get, we go for dumb things like the head of F&G's chief. We blew political capital on that, and that benefits us how exactly? "I'm not going to negotiate" is the default stance of a lot of gun rights activists, and it's not a good negotiating stance, is it? And like I said, here in this state, negotiation is what we've got. In most of the rest of the US no negotiation is needed, and in fact offering to negotiate is the wrong thing to do. But not here.

We also need to look at this from a chess point of view. Inserting patent language into the AB 1471 was a chess-style move.

Charliegone
10-31-2007, 5:39 PM
Sure we can give up some pawns, but we shouldn't give up too many. If we do we cannot promote those pawns to Queens, Knights, etc. You catch my drift?:) We can make them seem like they are winning, when in fact they are losing...unfortunately the people from GOC or CRPA didn't see it coming and were check-mated by Ahnold...and they thought they had the upper hand...:rolleyes:

CCWFacts
10-31-2007, 5:50 PM
We can make them seem like they are winning, when in fact they are losing.

That is exactly what we should do. It's called a gambit.

hoffmang
10-31-2007, 6:37 PM
Arnold screwed us and I am going to hold him accountable with my vote. Otherwise, we are just accepting his actions and there are no consequences. I am choosing not to accept his signing of these two bills. Some of you might be willing to do that. That is your choice, I am making mine.

Ten,

You're confusing the republic and direct representation. How would you feel if Arnie ran, didn't win against Boxer, and Boxer is able to pass a federal microstamping bill by 1 vote in the Senate?

The Republic is more important than trying to play gotcha with a politician who was simply responding to MORONS on our side playing gotcha with him.

-Gene

glockman19
10-31-2007, 6:44 PM
After speaking with many people, Merchants, DOJ, It doesn't look like the DOJ will ever be able to Implement this law into something workable.

tenpercentfirearms
10-31-2007, 7:45 PM
Ten,

You're confusing the republic and direct representation. How would you feel if Arnie ran, didn't win against Boxer, and Boxer is able to pass a federal microstamping bill by 1 vote in the Senate?

The Republic is more important than trying to play gotcha with a politician who was simply responding to MORONS on our side playing gotcha with him.

-GeneI am not confusing anything. You guys seem to be confusing Arnold for a pro-gun politician. I have not forgotten that he just signed a microstamping bill and a lead ammo ban. I guess you guys better remind me again how this is any better than Feinstein or Boxer signing the same thing.

While you are at it, explain to me again why Arnold is going to flip flop on this issue when he is a Senator and vote against something he apparently agreed with and signed when he was a Governor?

It seems I might be the one who is thinking clearly. Arnold has made his choice. He is no better than Feinstein or Boxer. You might be comfortable trusting him after AB50 and now AB1471/AB821. That is your decision, but one I am not going to share. Sorry.

Arnold played politics with your rights. I won't vote for him ever again and out of principle, I will let him know and I will follow through and not vote for him, nor encourage anyone else to do so.

It amazes me after what just happened you guys seem to think there is a better choice between Arnold and the rest of the anti-gun liberals. :confused:

bulgron
10-31-2007, 8:02 PM
It amazes me after what just happened you guys seem to think there is a better choice between Arnold and the rest of the anti-gun liberals. :confused:

I guess I'm waiting for you to tell me what you will do when (if) the election came down to Boxer v. Schwarzenegger. You think Schwarzenegger is a bad politician relative to gun rights. So do I. It's just that I happen to know that Boxer is way, way worse.

If I have to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'll choose Arnold. I'd rather prevent Arnold from getting the Republican nomination altogether (provided there's some other viable candidate), but if he does get the nomination then I'll hold my nose and vote for the man.

So what would you do if it's Boxer v. Schwarzenegger for U.S. Senate in 2010?

tenpercentfirearms
10-31-2007, 9:52 PM
I guess I'm waiting for you to tell me what you will do when (if) the election came down to Boxer v. Schwarzenegger. You think Schwarzenegger is a bad politician relative to gun rights. So do I. It's just that I happen to know that Boxer is way, way worse.

If I have to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'll choose Arnold. I'd rather prevent Arnold from getting the Republican nomination altogether (provided there's some other viable candidate), but if he does get the nomination then I'll hold my nose and vote for the man.

So what would you do if it's Boxer v. Schwarzenegger for U.S. Senate in 2010?

Vote independent.

M. D. Van Norman
10-31-2007, 10:41 PM
Vote Libertarian, but Barbara Boxer is more pro-gun than George W. Bush.

bwiese
10-31-2007, 10:54 PM
Vote Libertarian, but Barbara Boxer is more pro-gun than George W. Bush.

Where o where did this nonsense come from?

Frankly, GWB has been the most pro-gun prez in key ways that no other prea could be, given that he was at the right time & place.
- signed the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act: that keeps gun industry going
- he appointed Roberts & Alito to the Supremese. That lays the ground for future gun cases.
- he didn't sign renewal of the Fed AW ban. Disregard what he said about it.

The most important pro-gun aspect a future Prez can have is no longer about some future gun bill or another, but the Supreme Court justices that will be nominated, and whether they're "Original Intent" dudes. It's unlikely even a pro-gun Democrat Pres (say, if Richardson were there) would appoint such judges given atmospherics about other issues.

M. D. Van Norman
10-31-2007, 11:36 PM
I was kidding about Boxer but only a little. My reasoning is armed pilots or the lack thereof.

bulgron
10-31-2007, 11:44 PM
I was kidding about Boxer but only a little. My reasoning is armed pilots or the lack thereof.

Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein were two of only a handful of politicians to vote against the federal version of the Katrina bill. It tells you an awful lot about how they view the citizenry, doesn't it?

Bush signed the Katrina bill into law.

Arnold signed the CA-version of the Katrina bill.

I'd say, give me a Bush or a Schwarzenegger any day of the week over a Boxer or a Feinstein where gun rights are concerned.

Anthonysmanifesto
11-01-2007, 9:25 AM
I still argue that Arnold would not want to take a demotion and uproot his family.

Its a mental game that we play because the GOP doesn't have any other obvious candidate.

bulgron
11-01-2007, 9:55 AM
I still argue that Arnold would not want to take a demotion and uproot his family.

Its a mental game that we play because the GOP doesn't have any other obvious candidate.

Newsmax has an article (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Schwarzenegger_vs._Boxer_/2007/10/30/45133.html) on it. Arnold isn't saying anything, and may not even be thinking about it yet (as evidenced by his signing of AB1471/821). Polls show him as being competitive against Boxer if he did run. Boxer seems to be worried about that and has already started campaigning for her 2010 re-election. Indeed, she's already talked about the possibility of Arnold running against her in "a recent fundraising e-mail to supporters."

The Newsmax article indicates that Boxer is vulnerable to a moderate Republican. I thought that was interesting. They didn't say she was vulnerable to Arnold Schwarzenegger, they said a moderate Republican could do well against Boxer.

So why does the CA Republican party keep finding these drooling nutjobs to run for US Senate anyway? As large as this state is, surely they could do better than that.

Both Boxer and Feinstein are lunatic fringe type of people. A moderate of either party ought to be able to give them a good run for their money. So where have all the moderates gone, anyway?

M. D. Van Norman
11-01-2007, 11:45 AM
Bush signed the Katrina bill into law.

Arnold signed the CA-version of the Katrina bill.

I’d say, give me a Bush or a Schwarzenegger any day of the week over a Boxer or a Feinstein where gun rights are concerned.

Again, I was mostly kidding about Boxer. However, these anti-confiscation bills are the same kind of feel-good legislation that we usually rail against. They won’t actually stop the powers that be from disarming us whenever they see fit to do so.

Librarian
11-01-2007, 12:04 PM
Both Boxer and Feinstein are lunatic fringe type of people. A moderate of either party ought to be able to give them a good run for their money. So where have all the moderates gone, anyway?Moderate Republicans can't get State party support, so all we see are the more extreme. I like Tom McClintock quite a lot, but he's not electable to state-wide office, and I think Tom is the best of the experienced California Republicans.

bulgron
11-01-2007, 12:30 PM
Again, I was mostly kidding about Boxer. However, these anti-confiscation bills are the same kind of feel-good legislation that we usually rail against. They won’t actually stop the powers that be from disarming us whenever they see fit to do so.

As you know, no law can prevent bad people from doing bad things, especially in a lawless environment such as NOLA post Katrina. However, what the anti-confiscation bills do is give us the ability to sue the crap out of anyone who confiscates without good reason -- which ought to be enough to cause any cop or soldier to think twice about doing it.

It's all about consequences. If soldier-man tells me to hand over my guns as I stand in the rubble of my destroyed house, I can tell him his order is against the law. If he then points his weapon at my head and orders me to hand over my guns anyway, I will, but I'll be very careful to note his name, rank and serial number (if I can get it) or badge number (if applicable). That way, I'll know who to ruin financially once all the dust settles. Hey, he can pay to rebuild my house. Cool.

anhero
07-31-2009, 12:32 PM
I'm a little late on this thread, but.....

I and others here will try to drive alternate ways/organizations to distribute ODCMP Garands, etc. - since that now seems to be the primary reason to even be associated with CRPA.


Joining the Appleseed program ($20) and going through the rifle course (beneficial) will also qualify you for CMP. Appleseed is also a non-profit and teaches American Heritage during the 2 day course. The 2 day rifle course is free to military, women, and folks under 20. There are shoots every month somewhere in California and across other states as well. $70 for a 2 day course and they go over standing, sitting, and prone; steady hold factors for each position; sling usage; how to zero your sights (scope or iron, helps not waste money at the range trying to zero); explaining the concept of MOA and converting Inches / Minutes / Clicks.

Money donated and received go back to teaching other like minded folks about heritage and marksmanship.

I sound like an ad, only because I'm a recent participant and believe in what they are doing.


just my $.02

bwiese
07-31-2009, 1:01 PM
Guess we have some necroposting which awoke an almost 2 yr old thread.

Since that thread was started, CRPA evolved into a new group. While always maintaining the shooting disciplines, the new CRPA executive director, John Fields, is committed to not have a static organization on the political side - and CRPA has new, bright representation in Sacramento. Its new legislative liaison, Tom Pedersen, can ably help us and work in synchrony with other pro-gun forces.

Sgt Raven
07-31-2009, 1:55 PM
Guess we have some necroposting which awoke an almost 2 yr old thread.

Since that thread was started, CRPA evolved into a new group. While always maintaining the shooting disciplines, the new CRPA executive director, John Fields, is committed to not have a static organization on the political side - and CRPA has new, bright representation in Sacramento. Its new legislative liaison, Tom Pedersen, can ably help us and work in synchrony with other pro-gun forces.

Bill you might want to EDIT your first post since this thread was brought back to life. ;)

bwiese
07-31-2009, 2:01 PM
Bill you might want to EDIT your first post since this thread was brought back to life. ;)

Yes, I've cleared out references to old CRPA behavior since there's been wholesale new leadership there (John Fields, Tom Pedersen - and Gene Hoffman is on the board) that 'gets it' - hell, I'm a life member now!

gunsmith
08-01-2009, 1:02 AM
Guess we have some necroposting which awoke an almost 2 yr old thread.

Since that thread was started, CRPA evolved into a new group. While always maintaining the shooting disciplines, the new CRPA executive director, John Fields, is committed to not have a static organization on the political side - and CRPA has new, bright representation in Sacramento. Its new legislative liaison, Tom Pedersen, can ably help us and work in synchrony with other pro-gun forces.


I didn't look at the date in the OP, and was mightily confused becuz I remember crpa @ the nordyke thing, seemed like nice enough ppl 2me

bwiese
08-01-2009, 1:35 PM
I didn't look at the date in the OP, and was mightily confused becuz I remember crpa @ the nordyke thing, seemed like nice enough ppl 2me

You betcha. That was 'New' CRPA!

mossy
08-01-2009, 6:13 PM
i am sorry but what do these bills do or ban?