PDA

View Full Version : Sam Parades of GOC responds to Bill Wiese's Accusations/Bill Responds


tenpercentfirearms
11-02-2007, 5:01 PM
I received this e-mail just a second ago from Sam Paredes of the GOC.

Response to the accusations that GOC and CRPA are responsible for the signing of AB 1471 and AB 821

Bill Wiese (Senior Member – CalGuns.net):

It is unfortunate that instead of electing to seek the truth by having a rational and objective discussion about what happened regarding the signing of AB 1471 and AB 821, you and your handlers have chosen to launch accusations against GOC and CRPA based on long distance armchair quarterbacking, undisclosed shadowy sources and a total ignorance of the facts instead of placing blame where it belongs…Arnold Schwarzenegger.

See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=73228

It has become blatantly obvious that you and your crew are dead set at trying to hurt those of us who have dedicated our lives and our professions to the defense of the Second Amendment.

The truth is as follows, Bill, you got virtually every single detail wrong in your description of what happened. You have absolutely NO firsthand knowledge of anything that happened and were not present at any of the dozens of meetings that took place regarding these pieces of legislation both inside and outside the governor’s office. NRA was fully informed about everything, every step of the way.

GOC had NO desire to have a public airing of the FACTS…but we will do so if that is what it takes to correct and silence the baseless attacks that are being waged by yourself and others. The facts will make some people very uncomfortable and disillusioned. They will also be undisputed from which point anyone who chooses to continue to lie about the facts will be treading into the realm of libelous slander.

I will be happy to meet with anybody who wants to learn the truth. I will invite Senator Hollingsworth, NRA officials, NSSF officials and of course those who were personally and professionally involved in the process.

By the way Bill. I am not and have never been a contract lobbyist, once again your “facts” are wrong. Gerald Upholt is a contract lobbyist for only one client – CRPA, and Kathy Lynch is one of the most respected lobbyists in Sacramento, both for the dedication to her clients and to the integrity of her conduct, which is why she has so many mainstream clients.

Last August, GOC and I were attacked and accused of supporting anti-gun and anti-hunter legislation. This was an absolute lie and when then truth became known the accusers were forced to recant and apologize. Bill, you are associated with this same group and would love nothing more than to blame GOC for anything…but you are wrong again.

Gun owners in California can thank the good Lord that you and your henchmen have not been entrusted by tens of thousands of gun owners to “lobby” on their behalf to defend their Second Amendment and hunting rights. The information provided by your mysterious insiders and unnamed sources, is wrong and your conclusions are dead wrong.

Sam Paredes

Executive Director, Gun Owners of California

NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
SASS Life Member
SCI Member



Cc: Senator Dennis Hollingsworth
Chris Cox, NRA
David Lehman, NRA
Randy Kozuch, NRA
Larry Keene, NSSF
Kathy Lynch, NSSF, SCI
Gerald Upholt, CRPA

arguy15
11-02-2007, 5:04 PM
SASS.....

pnkssbtz
11-02-2007, 5:08 PM
I see a lot of mouthing of facts... but I don't see any actual facts... just hearsay and promises and allusions to him giving out the facts, but no actual facts...

.223
11-02-2007, 5:09 PM
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l270/karenrofl/lolowl.jpg

Grouch
11-02-2007, 5:09 PM
in for later

milsurpshooter
11-02-2007, 5:11 PM
oh please inlighten us as to "THE TRUTH" and by the way since you guys are lobbying for us nothing but bad things have happened. you are the one treading on thin ice pal. p.s. get bent.

AfricanHunter
11-02-2007, 5:27 PM
I am also very interested to hear the facts of the situation.

pnkssbtz
11-02-2007, 5:28 PM
By the way, if you google "Sam Paredes GOC" the calgun threads is #1 on google search. Bahahahahaaha

bulgron
11-02-2007, 5:28 PM
Um... So why do we have to meet with this guy in order to learn the truth?

He can't, like, you know, post his rebuttal online? :confused:

chris
11-02-2007, 5:29 PM
if these guys were fighting for out RIGHTS. hwo come year after year we almost and usually lose our rigths one bit at time. GOC and CRPA i'm talking about. i would like to know Mr. Perades how is that this board was very intrusmental in defeating ALL anti-gun legislation last year? also this year our heads were handed to us on a F'ing platter.

we now have the prospect of a defacto handgun ban by AB1471. even though it may not even be enforced because the crap does not work anyway. but still it's a law on the books that we gun owners here have to deal with.

How come you guys CRPA and GOC are not up these politicians ARSE and I mean not being polite and tell these F'in morons that this crap is wrong? it's time for you guys to take the gloves off and say "NO COMPROMISE" at all.

but since no fact were borught to us here at Calguns and I have read Mr. Weise's response. i wouldl like to see the FACTS since the laws were signed and were screwed. bring it out so we all can decide.

Solidmch
11-02-2007, 5:39 PM
"It has become blatantly obvious that you and your crew are dead set at trying to hurt those of us who have dedicated our lives and our professions to the defense of the Second Amendment."

WAAAAAAAH:sleep1: Okaaaay Im waiting for his facts!

milsurpshooter
11-02-2007, 5:39 PM
if these guys were fighting for out RIGHTS. hwo come year after year we almost and usually lose our rigths one bit at time. GOC and CRPA i'm talking about. i would like to know Mr. Perades how is that this board was very intrusmental in defeating ALL anti-gun legislation last year? also this year our heads were handed to us on a F'ing platter.

we now have the prospect of a defacto handgun ban by AB1471. even though it may not even be enforced because the crap does not work anyway. but still it's a law on the books that we gun owners here have to deal with.

How come you guys CRPA and GOC are not up these politicians ARSE and I mean not being polite and tell these F'in morons that this crap is wrong? it's time for you guys to take the gloves off and say "NO COMPROMISE" at all.

but since no fact were borught to us here at Calguns and I have read Mr. Weise's response. i wouldl like to see the FACTS since the laws were signed and were screwed. bring it out so we all can decide.

duh, they can't make any money that way.

pnkssbtz
11-02-2007, 5:42 PM
I shot this email to GOC contact on their website:

Sam Parades recently sent out an email letter (I am uncertain the scope of the mailing) in response to allegations by Bill Weise on calguns.net.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=74061


In the letter, Mr. Parades makes several allusions to "facts" that Bill Weise is supposedly unawares of.

Excerpts:

"The truth is as follows, Bill, you got virtually every single detail wrong in your description of what happened. You have absolutely NO firsthand knowledge of anything that happened and were not present at any of the dozens of meetings that took place regarding these pieces of legislation both inside and outside the governor’s office."

"GOC had NO desire to have a public airing of the FACTS…but we will do so if that is what it takes to correct and silence the baseless attacks that are being waged by yourself and others. The facts will make some people very uncomfortable and disillusioned. They will also be undisputed from which point anyone who chooses to continue to lie about the facts will be treading into the realm of libelous slander."

" I will be happy to meet with anybody who wants to learn the truth."


What I want to know, is what are these "facts" and why Sam Parades has not come forth with them and is instead only willing to do so in a special meeting? One would think that open transparency of the issue would lay things to rest and certainly engender an apology from Bill Weise.


I will be honest, given the light of the totality of the circumstances presented to the average gun owning citizen, I find these "facts" alluded to to not be readily apparent. Moreover the unwillingness of dissemination of the facts except via "meetings" causes me concerns of duplicity on Sam Parades' part.


If Sam Parades is completely genuine in his involvement with the AB initiatives, then I would think the gun owners community owes him thanks and a select few an apology for any such mischaracterizations.


However any unwillingness to be forthcoming TO THE PUBLIC, NOT SPECIAL PEOPLE IN SPECIAL MEETINGS, is and will be viewed by the public as duplicity and dishonesty on Sam Parades' part.

chickenfried
11-02-2007, 5:49 PM
Where are the facts from either side? Your post applies to both in my book.

I did not renew my CRPA membership after their no show at the regulatory meeting. NRA is the only organization getting my donation dollars for the time being. But that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically believe every speculative internet posting regarding CRPA and GOC.

I see a lot of mouthing of facts... but I don't see any actual facts... just hearsay and promises and allusions to him giving out the facts, but no actual facts...

pnkssbtz
11-02-2007, 5:52 PM
Where are the facts from either side? Your post applies to both in my book.

I did not renew my CRPA membership after their no show at the regulatory meeting. NRA is the only organization getting my donation dollars for the time being. But that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically believe every speculative internet posting regarding CRPA and GOC.

When someone says:

"You are wrong! You don't know anything, you didn't have all the facts. I have all the facts. But you are wrong, but and I have the facts to prove it!"

But doesn't actually disclose any evidence/facts, almost always they don't actually have any facts.

As to support for Bill's side? Read the link in the OP maybe?

Patriot
11-02-2007, 5:55 PM
Whiskey, tango, foxtrot, over?

I started reading, then scrolled down expecting some substance...and that's it. That read like a preface or an introduction, not a complete statement.

Cui malo - public knowledge of said sensitive 'facts' would be detrimental to whom?

And what's this crap about handlers and henchmen - sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel...

chiefcrash
11-02-2007, 5:55 PM
Hey wes: Did he send this directly to you out of the blue? Or did you refer him to the link and he responded with this?

...GOC had NO desire to have a public airing of the FACTS...

WHY THE %#@&! NOT? Why in god's name WOULDN'T you want to public air facts? And if you don't want to have a public airing of the facts, what exactly ARE you airing publicly?

CalNRA
11-02-2007, 6:04 PM
patiently waiting for the facts. :popcorn:

tenpercentfirearms
11-02-2007, 6:04 PM
Hey wes: Did he send this directly to you out of the blue? Or did you refer him to the link and he responded with this?

If you read the other post (not being critical of your reading, just pointing out for clarification and back ground knowledge) you will see that I sent an e-mail to GOC and to CRPA asking them about this thread.

As the e-mail states, four total people e-mailed him and so he is responding to our e-mails.

I agree, the NRA does the same thing. They don't ever get on these discussion boards directly and most of what is done in Sacramento is some real cloak and dagger stuff. It is hard to ask for proof from either side because of the nature of their work, they can't disclose back door info in public. So to be fair to Sam, the NRA wouldn't have one of their guys come out and make statements on this board. I am not going to blame Sam for not making statements either.

He posted his phone number. If you want to know his side, call him and ask, but don't expect him to make an official statements that might jeopardize his lobbying efforts because the NRA won't do it either.

And that is kind of what a lot of you don't understand. You are looking for these groups to come right out and tell you what you want to hear and try to fight the liberals in a conventional war. In California we are behind enemy lines and fighting an occupying army. We have to fight as guerrilla fighters. The conventional war tactics won't work. All of the fighting is going on behind the scenes.

I have to admit, Arnold should have vetoed those bills. So the question is why didn't he? The idea that the booting of the DFG head might have had something to do with it makes sense. So who had the DFG guy booted? It seems they made a tactical mistake. I also hold Arnold accountable too. Sorry, but I will never support him again. And that is that from my perspective.

paradox
11-02-2007, 6:10 PM
GOC had NO desire to have a public airing of the FACTS…but we will do so if that is what it takes to correct and silence the baseless attacks that are being waged by yourself and others. The facts will make some people very uncomfortable and disillusioned. They will also be undisputed from which point anyone who chooses to continue to lie about the facts will be treading into the realm of libelous slander.


So sign up for a CalGuns account and publicly air your FACTS.

Membership is open to anyone who wants to step up and state their piece.

Grow up, step up, and present your side in public. Otherwise get the hell out of the way and stop making things harder than they already have to be for us California gun owners.

leelaw
11-02-2007, 6:13 PM
All I needed to know about CRPA and GOC I learned during the 2006 public hearings for DOJ regulatory change of the definition of a fixed magazine.

<crickets>

Kestryll
11-02-2007, 6:20 PM
Let me state this now so there is no confusion, concern or question of 'I didn't know'.

Calguns is open to all California firearms enthusiasts as long as they post and act in a civil manner while posting.
While this applies to new members it also applies to old members as well.

If Mr. Parades decides to join to discuss this I will expect that the members here keep to the issues and not turn it in to an attack on anyone. I would also expect Mr. Parades to address the issue and the replies in the same manner.

A new member coming in swinging is not going to do anything but build animosity and make for a short tenure here.
Conversely current members 'piling on' or attacking a new member will not be tolerated either.

If you really want to discuss this keep the personal stuff out and stick to addressing the points not the individual. Otherwise it just becomes another flame-fest that serves no other purpose than to make for even more division in a group that needs unity more than most.

That said I'd be interested in hearing more on this as well.

DedEye
11-02-2007, 6:40 PM
:popcorn:

daskraut
11-02-2007, 7:23 PM
more crickets.........

M. Sage
11-02-2007, 7:43 PM
He posted his phone number. If you want to know his side, call him and ask, but don't expect him to make an official statements that might jeopardize his lobbying efforts because the NRA won't do it either.

Those efforts are over, now. The laws are on the books, so...

Also, at least NRA gets in touch with us about current bills, and helps organize us for calls and letters. A whole lotta nuthin coming from CRPA and GOC... till you call them on not being helpful (or being the opposite thereof). Then all you get is third-hand "nuh, uh. We're useful!"

Mute
11-02-2007, 7:44 PM
That's not really an answer. I'll reserve judgment until I actually hear some of these facts. I don't care much for backroom explanations either. The truth behind what happened either can be discussed in public or not. Since these are organizations that are supposed to represent paying members, I'm very suspicious of activities that aren't exposed to the light of day. In fact, it plain stinks.

M. Sage
11-02-2007, 7:47 PM
I can understand it while the bills are in the circuit, but an after-action shouldn't reveal anything "compromising."

That is, unless...

I'd like to hear these facts, but I'm not really willing to make a phone call.

Bruce
11-02-2007, 7:48 PM
FACTS, Mr. Paredes. Please post your Facts.:toetap05:

1911_sfca
11-02-2007, 7:51 PM
Gun owners in California can thank the good Lord that you and your henchmen have not been entrusted by tens of thousands of gun owners to “lobby” on their behalf to defend their Second Amendment and hunting rights.

Bill.. you have henchmen? :eek: Cool!!! :cool2::cool2: How come I didn't know bout that?



Clearly Paredes is grasping at straws here. If there were facts for him to use in a rebuttal, he would have done it.

Solidmch
11-02-2007, 7:55 PM
Bill.. you have henchmen? :eek: Cool!!! :cool2::cool2: How come I didn't know bout that?



Clearly Paredes is grasping at straws here. If there were facts for him to use in a rebuttal, he would have done it.

Wow where would one aquire those.

Annie Oakley
11-02-2007, 8:03 PM
:lurk5: I soooo need a Diet Pepsi to go with this popcorn. :p

5968
11-02-2007, 8:52 PM
Facts, you want facts...... I have lost yet even more of my gun rights. Those are facts. THANKS!

Bad Voodoo
11-02-2007, 9:01 PM
Facts, you want facts...... I have lost yet even more of my gun rights. Those are facts. THANKS!

Yep, that about covers my thoughts on this topic as well. I'm getting strangely used to "the facts."

-voodoo

SchooBaka
11-02-2007, 9:19 PM
I have a question.
Are GOC and GOA affiliated?

anothergunnut
11-02-2007, 9:50 PM
Can I be one of Bill's henchman?

milsurpshooter
11-02-2007, 9:54 PM
so Bill do you have one of those lairs inside a hollowed out volcano yet, oh and do you have sharks with friggen lasers on there heads.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-02-2007, 10:04 PM
I'll tell you what...I had some questions about Bill's explanation on the chain of events that lead to the passing of those asinine anti-gun bills that our not-so-beloved Governor recently signed into law. I always learned, believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.

That said, Bill has a strong reputation here on Calguns. That reputation has been built by his willingness to help many of us new members, over the past months and years, with our noob questions regarding the minefield that is CA gun laws. When the State was trying to redefine "capacity to accept" and other such nonsense, Bill was one of the few that took a stand and laid the facts out there for the polliticians to hear.

Where was Parades and the GOC during this period? I'll tell you, MIA.

To be fair, the info that Bill posted on this topic was hearsay. There was no corroborating information and much was left unsaid. Even considering those facts, or lack thereof, I trust Bill's word over Parades. That does not mean everything Bill is saying is the 100% truth, but I am confident that he is not knowingly misleading us, unlike Mr. Parades who, along with the GOC, has been suspiciously absent from the public debate we all have been witness to.

So, either Mr. Parades explains to us why Californians should support the GOC or the relevancy of him and his group will continue to deteriorate. And I dont want to hear any cloak and dagger crap....I want substantive results. What has the GOC done for CA gun owners....either put up or shut up!

milsurpshooter
11-02-2007, 10:12 PM
"I trust Bill's word over Parades'
i'll second that.

tenpercentfirearms
11-02-2007, 10:16 PM
I just need the answer to this series of questions.

Was the governor planning on vetoing these two bills? If so, what changed his mind? If it was getting Hanna replaced by Republican legislators, who orchestrated this event?

Answer me that and that should tell us all we need to know.

dwtt
11-02-2007, 10:28 PM
I see a lot of mouthing of facts... but I don't see any actual facts... just hearsay and promises and allusions to him giving out the facts, but no actual facts...

I feel the same way. If Sam would join up and address the issue by telling us the facts his email states he would disclose, then he'll have some credibility with me. Of course, I'm an ex-GOC member so he doesn't care what my opinion is.
I'll give him 2 weeks to sign up and give us the facts. :D

metalhead357
11-02-2007, 11:08 PM
Oh lord.............

Need I say it? The phrase "Divide and conquer" mean anything to anyone?


So he got it wrong...get over it & thanks for STILL NOT INFORMING ANYONE as to what really transpired.

Its law now. So move onto getting it recinded, crushed in court or whatever.

Jeez gents...this In fighting has got to stop. Short of that why not just turn all your guns into Sarah Brady herself..........

Librarian
11-02-2007, 11:32 PM
Jeez gents...this In fighting has got to stop.
The emotion notwithstanding, is it not true that this thread, in its way, is trying to establish whether some are fighting others, and who those might be if so?

If there are competing lobby groups, what agendas does each really have? What accomplishments are there, and by what strategies and techniques were those achieved?

Do we at Calguns have a unified vision of goals? A plurality, perhaps, if not unified? What do we think we want? Who is working towards those goals?

I tend to agree with tenpercent - we're substantially working 'behind enemy lines' here. But I don't think secrecy is useful in analyzing completed actions, except where it protects future action. Arguing the latter requires establishing some level of trust.

I dropped out of GOC, myself. A couple of reasons, most prominently that anyone writing in their publication sounded like a dinosaur.

It's true that a political movement must have a reservoir of the 'pure ideas' in order to guide the movement; at the same time, sacrificing progress in changing the minds of others outside the center to purity for its own sake is just self defeating - I don't think we want to go down the same road as the Shakers (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/07/23/the_last_ones_standing/).

AJAX22
11-02-2007, 11:34 PM
All men are fallible,

an open dialogue would go a long way toward clearing the air, establishing what occurred, and planing future action.

I admit I have my own natural inclinations as to whom to believe based on past experiences. But I'm willing to suspend disbelief.

hoffmang
11-02-2007, 11:50 PM
CRPA supported the Dog Tethering bill:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_1551-1600/sb_1578_cfa_20060626_095544_asm_comm.html

This is the bill that they are claiming slander on. I guess this link at the California Government site is just slander.

Call CRPA and ask them whether they supported or opposed the dismissal of the head of Fish and Game and what evidence they can provide to support their statement.

Lies are easy. The truth takes work.

-Gene

hoffmang
11-02-2007, 11:53 PM
He posted his phone number. If you want to know his side, call him and ask, but don't expect him to make an official statements that might jeopardize his lobbying efforts because the NRA won't do it either.

Ten,

I'm being dense, but where is the phone number? I would quite enjoy a direct conversation...

-Gene

chico.cm
11-03-2007, 12:04 AM
Col. Sam: "You want answers?"
Lt. Bill: "I think I'm entitled to them!"
Col. Sam: "You want ANSWERS?"
Lt. Bill: "I Want The Truth!"
Col. Sam: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Son, we live in a world with walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?...."


Just another henchman, watching and waiting! :rolleyes:

Army
11-03-2007, 3:58 AM
Wowww. I always wanted to be a henchman. Sure, they always get their asses kicked by the superhero, but up until then they get to wear the cool clothes and jackets!

Scarecrow Repair
11-03-2007, 7:54 AM
Jeez gents...this In fighting has got to stop.

First: Just as in any fight, it only takes one to start a fight. If GOC and/or CRPA have been working as Bill described, then they are the ones who need to stop the infighting. It won't happen from everyone else surrendering.

Second: you ALWAYS need a post mortem unless you want to make the same mistakes over and over.

tenpercentfirearms
11-03-2007, 7:58 AM
Ten,

I'm being dense, but where is the phone number? I would quite enjoy a direct conversation...

-Gene

Ooops, I thought he included his phone number in his reply, but it was actually after the fact in another e-mail to me. So just e-mail him instead and ask for his phone number.

infogoc@gunownersca.com

I am starting to kind of get deeper into this. I have to figure out what I should disclose and what I shouldn't, but this issue seems to be getting clearer to me.

KenpoProfessor
11-03-2007, 8:30 AM
The sooner you guys get over the fact that Arnold was the one who screwed you over the better. Arnold signed the bill, for whatever reason, whether or not the bill even made sense, he still signed it into law. No one to blame but the people who put the bill on his desk, and the one who signed it into law, that's really the bottom line. So he makes a bid for Senator, will you take him instead of Feinstein or Boxer with what he's done to you already? The buck stopped with Arnold, regardless of who, what, when, where these other orgs. were and did.

Oh yea, the term "libelous slander" was a just a bit over the top. It's either libel, slander, or libel and slander, but it can't be both. Libel being the written word, and slander being the spoken.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

tenpercentfirearms
11-03-2007, 8:49 AM
I think the best I can do at this time is make a timeline of the events that transpired as best as I can see them from media reports and the Internet.

Tuesday September 4: AB 821 passes the Senate. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_821&sess=CUR&house=B&author=nava)

Wednesday September 5: AB 821 passes the Assembly and is thereby on its way to the Governor's desk. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_821&sess=CUR&house=B&author=nava)

Monday September 10: Governor receives letter from 34 Republican Senators urging him to remove Judd Hanna from the Fish and Game Commission. (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/378564.html)

Tuesday September 11: The Fish and Game Commission sends a letter to the governor asking him to veto AB 821. (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a35/news/20070912AD35AR02.htm)

Tuesday September 11: Hanna is asked to resign by Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-resign14sep14,1,2375410.story?ctrack=5&cset=true)

Thursday September 13: Judd Hanna resigns after request by governor's office. (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/378564.html)

Friday September 14: Last day of the legislative session. (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/BILLSLEGISLATURE/2007legcalendar.html)

Saturday Ocboter 13: Governor signs both AB 1471 & AB 821 into law.

tenpercentfirearms
11-03-2007, 9:21 AM
So using the timeline above, I have a few questions.

The bill was heading for the governor's desk on Wednesday September 5. What would be the point of sending this letter about Hanna on Monday September 10? It obviously wasn't intended to sway the liberal legislature from passing AB 821 and sending it to the governor's desk as that was already a done deal. Not to mention letters to the governor about Fish and Game Commission appointees have nothing to do with the legislature passing legislation.

What would you do if you were Arnold and you get a letter from 34 Republican legislators at the beginning of the last week of the legislative calendar asking you to remove a six year appointee 7 months after he was appointed by you(source (http://www.fgc.ca.gov/2007/hannaappointed.pdf))? The question you should be asking is what is the political context of such a request? If you read between the lines, does the governor need these 34 players on his side with some important bills through out the last week? What if he blows them off and doesn't have the low level Hanna removed? Will he sacrafice Hanna to accomplish his bigger tasks?

Apparently he will as Hanna is asked to resign the next day. That same day, Hanna's Fish and Game Commission writes a letter to Arnold asking him to veto the bill!!! Despite our fears that Hanna is a tree hugging liberal and might do damage to us, the commission he sits on writes a letter to Arnold asking him to veto AB 821!

Do you think my line of reasoning and questioning is without merit? If so, then we need the following information.

#1, was Hollingsworth the sole owner of the 34 member letter to the Governor? Hollingsworth is claiming he was. Bill Wiese is claiming Paredes was really behind it. Sam, what do you say to this? Were you behind the Hollingsworth letter?

#2, what was the point behind the Hollingsworth letter? Hollingsworth is claiming he did it to try and stop the bill from reaching the governor's desk. Well that was a stupid idea considering it didn't arrive until 5 days after it had already passed the Assembly and therefore was technically already on the governor's desk.

Second, despite Hanna being on the Fish and Game Commission, the Fish and Game Commission still wrote a letter to the Governor urging him to veto AB 821. Was Hanna the devil Hollingsworth seems to think he was? He might have been, but he was only one of five and his presence didn't seem to stop the Fish and Game Commission from wanting to veto AB 821.

#3, Why did the NRA receive all of the negative press from this? In every article I read related to this subject this morning, everyone blamed the NRA for supporting the Hollingsworth letter. Why isn't the GOC, CRPA, and/or Hollingsworth agreeing with the media and saying the NRA screwed up with this letter at a bad time? Why is the GOC claiming that Marty Wilson, the Governor's own campaign consultant who was hired as a consultant by the Audubon Society (co-sponsors of AB 821), were the key in a sudden signing of AB 821. They also claim the CA Association of Chiefs of Police changed their possition on AB 1471 and that was the reason it was signed.

The GOC, CRPA, and Hollingsworth know they don't want to push the NRA on this one because everyone behind the scenes knows the truth. The Hollingsworth letter sealed our fate on these issues. Screwing with an unpredictable Schwarzenegger at the end of the legislative session clearly led him to sign these two bills as a pay back to the "gun guys" not to screw with him.

However, you would never want that to be known because Hollingsworth has told Bill Wiese to
"Now, rather than ranting and trying to create an environment where we eat
our own, why don't you do something constructive, like letting this
governor know how displeased you are with his latest liberal turn? Then
write out a check for your dues to CRPA, GOC, SCI, GOA and NRA."
That is right, the reason we lost is because we didn't send enough money to the CRPA and GOC and the other lobbyists did a better job than the CRPA, GOC, and NRA. So now Hollingsworth wants you to send more money to the people who are not getting the job done.

No, the reason we lost is because of gross incompetence. Congratulations, Hanna has been fired. We won't have to worry about him on the Fish and Game Commission anymore. :mad:

Guys, these back door issues matter to us. If you can't see that who says what and does what matters, then you must not have heard the Governor signed AB 1471 and aB 821! These are gigantic defeats for us. Huge. It most certainly matters that Senator Hollingsworth wrote a letter and was signed by 33 other "Republicans" at the worst possible time and suddenly out of the blue Arnold signs these two bills. It certainly does matter that Hollingsworth claims, Next, you [Bill Wiese] ignorantly impugn GOC and CRPA while trying to convince your
audience that NRA's absence from the fight over Hanna, 1471 and 821 was due
to their superior intellect. Uh huh.

No one in Sacramento is more effective at fighting for Second Amendment
issues and sportsmen and winning most of those fights against a massively
liberal legislature and a waffling governor than GOC and CRPA. No one. Where were the CRPA and GOC at the 2006 "Capable of Accepting a Detachable Magazine" Regulation hearing? Where were the CRPA and GOC yesterday at the Fish and Game's lead ammo regulation hearing? Ask them that.

It most certainly matters that the NRA did not ask for that letter to be written and it most certainly matters that the NRA did not force the Governor's hand. It most certainly matters that the NRA has received all of the blame by the liberal media for this and it most certainly matters that the GOC and CRPA who are so closely tied to Hollingsworth are claiming they were out lobbied and to send more money.

I didn't care about this issue much before because I was still in shock that the Governor signed AB 1471 and AB 821. Now that I am doing some research, I have to agree with not only Bill Wiese, but with the facts. That letter sunk us. The sad thing is the Governor is pretty much untouchable on this one. He can do whatever he wants. It didn't matter that he should have listened to us and that he should have vetoed those bills. When it came down to it, he played politics and reminded Hollingsworth who was in charge. Unfortunately, Hollingsworth was speaking for himself and not the rest of us, but we certainly got the message right along with him.If it was that simple we wouldn't call it politics. There is a whole chain of accountability on this, and we want to know the whole chain. It's the fault of everyone who contributed to it's passing, not just Arnold.I think that sums this one up pretty well.

KenpoProfessor
11-03-2007, 10:09 AM
If it was that simple we wouldn't call it politics. There is a whole chain of accountability on this, and we want to know the whole chain. It's the fault of everyone who contributed to it's passing, not just Arnold.

Look, both of these bills "Res ipsa loquitur", and are stupid, not only "prima facie", but overall. Arnold knew this, maybe not, either way, he acted on his own, either to prove a point, just being stupid, or otherwise. No one can be attributable to this act other than the legislators or Arnold. Why can no one see this? It doesn't matter who was in front of or behind the scenes anymore, it's done, the milk is all over the floor.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

bg
11-03-2007, 10:27 AM
Hmmmmm.

http://paris15info.blogspirit.com/images/medium_sherlock-holmes.jpg

MrTuffPaws
11-03-2007, 10:39 AM
It is utterly amazing how many people on here will take rumors as fact with no proof of their backing.

:gunsmilie: "The GOC screwed us"
:rolleyes: "Do you have any proof"
:gunsmilie: "Yeah, blah blah blah"
:rolleyes: "That's not proof, that is just rumors and hearsay"
:gunsmilie: "But you got to believe me!"
:rolleyes: :sigh:

tenpercentfirearms
11-03-2007, 10:45 AM
It is utterly amazing how many people on here will take rumors as fact with no proof of their backing.

I guess you didn't read my time line of events nor my analysis. It seems pretty clear to me that the Hollingsworth letter caused Arnold to sign those bills. The GOC is claiming it was actually the efforts of other lobbiest over our own efforts.

So just because the chief of police association backed the bill this year as opposed to last year when Lockyer, Petra, and a host of others backed it and he vetoed it, he decided to sign it this year? Do you believe that?

We got screwed on this one, but not by the Brady's or the anti's, but by Hollingsworth and who ever encouraged him to write that letter.

We know this now, and Kenpo is right, it is spilled milk.

It is time to move on. We have three elections coming up next year and now we have to work harder to counter the new bills that will be coming after the anti's feel emboldened by their accidental victory.

It is time to move on and support those that support us.

metalhead357
11-03-2007, 11:25 AM
DONT misuderstand me folks. I want the truth and CAN handle the truth:p

What I'm saying is that all this CAN be thoroughly talked out without the fighting, name calling and ill-will, bad feelings, stab in the back remarks.

If "all this" was truly due to just competing agendas...then so be it; but lets try to coodinate just a lil' next time...get what I'm saying?

Personally, I'd love a direct answer to Bill's characterization of how 'they' sat in the lunchroom whist the rest of the 2nd amedment peeps were off in another room. Just boggles the mind to think that all involved couln't/wouldn't stand together.

I've gotta look at that tethering one before I say anything on/about that one..........


And 10~ good right up & thank you for all this.
Kes- thank you for the open offer to them all to show & speak here.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
11-03-2007, 11:56 AM
Jeez gents...this In fighting has got to stop. Short of that why not just turn all your guns into Sarah Brady herself..........

I agree completely.

Now, on to the actual topic:

So the lead ammo ban bill is sitting on the governor's desk. Last year it was there and he vetoed it. This year he gets a letter saying that Hanna is not impartial on the lead ammo discussion. That he wants to ban lead ammo. Therefore please can him.

The next day he gets a letter from the rest of the fish & game commission asking him not to ban lead ammo. This same day, Hanna is asked to resign. Two days later he does.

A month later, Arnold signs the ban on lead ammo.

How does a letter opposing somebody who wants lead ammo banned, and Arnold firing that person apparently in agreement, cause Arnold to sign the lead ammo ban?

hoffmang
11-03-2007, 1:26 PM
How does a letter opposing somebody who wants lead ammo banned, and Arnold firing that person apparently in agreement, cause Arnold to sign the lead ammo ban?

Because had the head of F&G not been removed, Arnold could have vetoed the lead ammo ban with a veto explanation of "this should be regulated by F&G." Now he couldn't do that due to someone getting the head of F&G removed.

-Gene

bwiese
11-03-2007, 1:51 PM
Sam...

It's funny you think I have 'handlers'. Other than my cats, my boss, and when my girlfriend tells me to take out her garbage, no one tells me what to do. And I'm still looking at getting a Henchman - though with California labor costs and upcoming ArnieCare, I can probably only afford just one, and only as a part-timer.

I do apologize for some poor hurried writing that said you were a contract lobbyist and thus accidentally lumping you in with CRPA's Gerry Upholt & Kathy Lynch in this aspect. You indeed are not a contract lobbyist, and are instead employed by a family business (GOC) that has no elected structure (and thus 'membership' is really in essence a 'payment').

The rest of my posting regarding what is increasingly known as the 'Paredes Incident', however, stands. There may perhaps be minute deviations in sequency of actual events from my writing about them quickly and late at night - but the overriding theme and behaviors discussed are true.

I notice you danced around, and certainly did not refute, that you wrote & drove the Hanna letter and issue. Of course, you cannot - because a room can be filled with people who can say you indeed did.

Time for a bit of somewhat inductive thinking - let us say, for a moment, that the Governor in fact actually *vetoed* AB821 and AB1471. Would it still have been wise to have written and publicized the Hanna letter with this timing - when directly related legislation was going to, or on the table of, the Governor? Of course not! And your members deserve better thought processes, even though you apparently think they need to be thrown some 'red meat' every once in awhile, regardless of the consequences

[A roughly analogous situation..... you're at work starting a new project and time is tight. In a very short time your boss will issuing raises & merit bonuses & profit sharing. But you agitate to go take a long vacation, which you're formally entitled to, right at a critical time when you're most needed on the project. You are then dismayed to find out on return - when raises/bonuses are given - that you've been kicked in the teeth.]

Your defense of Gerry Upholt & Kathy Lynch is also laughable, given their past conduct. SB15 'safe handgun' laws passed [I]BECAUSE of CRPA's support (combined with a last-minute fold by SASS, who was bought off when their precious single-action wheelguns became exempt in 12133PC). That bill passed by just a few votes due to perceived lack of unified opposition to it. Kathy's big-store retail clients apparently LIKE handguns to be outdated and fall off the roster as they can deal with this situation easily with their large distributors - unlike small mom & pop gun shops. SB15, as structured in 12125PC et seq, became the framework for subsequent attacks on handgun ownership, including SB489 mag disconnect/loaded chamber indicator matters, and AB1471 microstamping. The worst consequences of SB15 are not in the Roster or initial implementation but in subsequent amendments.

CRPA/Kathy was also deeply involved in Torrico's "ammo bill" last year (I've forgotten the number) which would've effectively banned mail order shipments of ammo to California shooters. I simply don't need Kathy Lynch's large retailers to get in between Miwall, Midway, Ammoman and myself, thank you - we do just fine the way we are. It's really unlikely Turners or Big 5, etc. will ever carry skid lots of Australian or Radway Green 308 or bulk 7.62x39 or Federal XM193 in bulk, at reasonable prices. Of course the Brady types love ammo restrictions - either by laws or warped marketplaces - so it sounds like there's some parallel work going on there to me. I am not sure on which side GOC was on this issue, so if I inadvertently tarred GOC with that brush during some hurried writing, apologies - but CRPA's Kathy was in that up to her eyeballs.

By the way, where WERE you during the Aug 16 DOJ regulatory hearing last year? After the hearing I and a bunch of other Calgunners saw you walking around nearby, you clearly could've showed up. I'm sure quite a few GOC 'members' own off-list rifles could have been affected by matters springing from that hearing. Having the presence of yet another gun organization in addition to Calgunners & NRA - accompanied by a substantive technically/legally accurate filing - would have been helpful. I saw CRPA's 1- or 2-page respone to the proposed regulations and it was woefully inadequate: there were at least 20 Calgunners that had far more detailed filings, and these guys weren't paid to do this. (I recall no GOC submission, just a CRPA letter, but I could be wrong.) It was also Calgunners who got remnants of this proposed regulation plucked from the DOJ website as an underground law - where were you?

Your "in defense of the Second Amendment" might be a good sound bite but I really don't see much relevant legislation that was effectively driven, stopped or favorably reshaped by you. In fact, when I looked over some old legislation you drove (I believe it was while your wife was working for Jay LaSeur) I saw AB2218 which - although it admittedly had some benefits - effectively created various circumstances for 'constructive possession' for AWs. That's a way *bad* trade, baby. There are other far, far better ways to gut CA's AW laws, and I think we've done pretty well here on Calguns: we have (approx.) 70K (or more) off-list based rifles of all sorts being shot weekly at ranges. That wasn't the case in Fall 2005, and we have more progress to make.

To reiterate, GOC's hamhanded attempts to win a small battle (the Hanna matter) cost us the war. It was the wrong thing to happen at the wrong time. I feel this action - along with a sequence of CRPA betrayals mentioed above - in essence make these organizations 'antigun' by result, regardless of parrotted pro-gun sentiments. I believe things will only change when GOC and CRPA convert from private businesses to ones where staff are elected from a membership base.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
11-03-2007, 2:05 PM
Because had the head of F&G not been removed, Arnold could have vetoed the lead ammo ban with a veto explanation of "this should be regulated by F&G." Now he couldn't do that due to someone getting the head of F&G removed.

-Gene

I'm not convinced. The department still existed and could regulate whatever it felt like. In fact, now with this guy gone, the department could go ahead and not ban lead ammo just like the position they took in their letter to Arnold. I'm just not seeing these letters and this guy being canned as being a driving force to sign this legislation. Especially since the move of firing Hana can be considered supporting the position that lead ammo shouldn't be banned. Did something else happen in that month? It makes more sense to me that Ted Kennedy called him up, or the Brady Center lobbied him in that meantime than that he would just apparently reverse his position.

bwiese
11-03-2007, 2:19 PM
The department still existed and could regulate whatever it felt like.

In theory, but remember they are Gov's appointees. And since the so-called 'science' on AB821 has been refuted, the regulatory agency could in fact (1) either say the status quo was good or (2) write regulations for restricted times/areas in a far more limited fashion than the broad-sweeping law in 821.

I'm just not seeing these letters and this guy being canned as being a driving force to sign this legislation.

It's retribution. Arnie was forced, cornered, etc. to do something he didn't want to do, during a time when trivial matters like these (relative to a what governor worries about - budgets, roads, schools) weren't even on his radar.
So this in-party drama gets stirred up and he has to can Hanna to keep the peace.

It makes more sense to me that Ted Kennedy called him up, or the Brady Center lobbied him in that meantime than that he would just apparently reverse his position.

Naaah. The Bradys have no weight, and Arnie is his own man. So when he's cornered, he gets payback later. And he doesn't know the difference between NRA vs GOC vs CRPA etc - he just followed the immutable political law, "Those who try to screw me get screwed themselves": so he signed.

We KNOW that veto was recommended by legislative staff. On below-the-radar bills like this, most of these recommendations are followed as they take into account politics, practicality and funding. (Each bill to be signed or vetoed comes to gov's office with both prewritten "I vetoed this because..." or "I supported this because..." letters and a recommended policy statement.

Outlaw Josey Wales
11-03-2007, 2:25 PM
Regardless of whatever Sam Parades may have done or not done, it was still Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that picked up his pen and signed his name on these two bills. He and he alone is responsible for the final outcome in this matter!

bwiese
11-03-2007, 2:31 PM
Regardless of whatever Sam Parades may have done or not done, it was still Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that picked up his pen and signed his name on these two bills. He and he alone is responsible for the final outcome in this matter!

Yes, we are not trying to remove that much blame from Arnold.

But we live in The Real World, and this was such a trivial issue on his radar that it was "in the bank" in our favor until we shot ourrselves in the foot by so-called "pro-gun" interests

IF GOC HAD NOT DONE WHAT IT DID, WE WOULD NOT HAVE AB821 & 1471.

We need to clean our side of the house so we don't aid & abet such actions again - because when stuff like this is in our control, we need to take the blame.

bwiese
11-03-2007, 2:47 PM
That's what I'm getting at here. Arnold is at fault, make no mistake, but it sure looks as if others are too. Arnold is not our pawn, and doesn't have to listen to us, so if "our side" is giving him reason to ignore us, that is a huge problem.

Correct. Politics is about making things happen - and for that to occur you have to keep things right on your own side.

Politics is also about people being human and reacting to being screwed over.

People keep thinking that there has to be rationality in politics - and there's plenty of irrationality until you allow for human factors - pride, screw-over, what-have-you.

Outlaw Josey Wales
11-03-2007, 2:51 PM
Do I understand you correctly that Arnold alone is responsible for this? If that is the case, would you keep voting for an anti-gun Senator or Assemblyman becasue it's not their job to stop such legislation, it is the sole responsibility of the governor?

That's what I'm getting at here. Arnold is at fault, make no mistake, but it sure looks as if others are too. Arnold is not our pawn, and doesn't have to listen to us, so if "our side" is giving him reason to ignore us, that is a huge problem.

While I am certainly aware of the role played by California's esteemed state Senator's and Assemblyperson's with this legislation, in the end it was Arnold's decision to sign these two bills into law or veto them to the trashbin of the legislature where they belong. Read the last sentence of my post which clearly refers to the "final outcome"!

sierratangofoxtrotunion
11-03-2007, 2:59 PM
It's retribution. Arnie was forced, cornered, etc. to do something he didn't want to do, during a time when trivial matters like these (relative to a what governor worries about - budgets, roads, schools) weren't even on his radar.
So this in-party drama gets stirred up and he has to can Hanna to keep the peace.

So the working theory is that Arnold was upset at the gun lobby for forcing his hand in firing Hana. And that to get back at them, show them who's boss, or whatever, he signed the bill that accomplishes what he fired Hana for pushing.

I don't see Arnold as that petty (getting back at somebody over a relatively small issue), or as that easily swayed (that his hand was forced in firing Hana). It's easier for me to believe that he agreed with the letter, fired Hana, then for some reason changed his stance somewhere in the following 30 days. I'd more ready to believe that he took flak from the media or from state Democrats on firing Hana that it was a sign that he was pro-gun and anti-environment (both in one instance) and wanted to reverse that politically for reelection or Senate aspirations.

Mute
11-03-2007, 3:12 PM
I know Benedict Arnold is responsible for signing this crap, and I won't forgive him for doing so. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going to find out what other parties may have contributed to this mess. I'm have more than enough anger to hold more than just one guy responsible.

bwiese
11-03-2007, 3:14 PM
So the working theory is that Arnold was upset at the gun lobby for forcing his hand in firing Hana. And that to get back at them, show them who's boss, or whatever, he signed the bill that accomplishes what he fired Hana for pushing.

As well as AB1471.

I don't see Arnold as that petty (getting back at somebody over a relatively small issue),

He's not only getting back at 'gun lobby' but against the politicians who pushed for firning Hanna. That latter may be more of the payback since these politicians didn't support 821/1471 either - as a matter separate from "gun lobby".

or as that easily swayed (that his hand was forced in firing Hanna).

At the time all this drama happened he needed the R's for a whole host of legislative issues way beyond guns.

Poltiics is all about pettiness and retribution.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
11-03-2007, 3:29 PM
At the time all this drama happened he needed the R's for a whole host of legislative issues way beyond guns.

Poltiics is all about pettiness and retribution.

Hmmmmm. Ok. So far I'm not convinced of it, but I'm getting close to accepting it's validity as it being a possibility.

But how do we know he wasn't already going to sign these bills anyway? And that he just fired Hana for the political reasons stated, but independently of his actual position on these bills? His legislative staff recommended he veto, but what kind of read did they get on him?

Outlaw Josey Wales
11-03-2007, 3:32 PM
Ok, I understand where you are comming from, but for me that is a gross over simplification.

Let me ask you this, if you back a rat into a corner and throw rocks at it, does it get all the blame for biting you? Or do you get some of the blame because you should have treated a rat like a rat, knowing that it has it's own motivations and instincts that are not your own.

To me it really was that simple.

Speaking of rats. Remember, it was gun owners and conservatives who gathered the signatures necessary to recall Gray Davis so that Arnold could become Governor in the first place. And while Arnold may have his own motivations, political and otherwise, so do the voters who put him in office.

metalhead357
11-03-2007, 3:39 PM
tag to watch.

DedEye
11-03-2007, 3:43 PM
Wooo!!!

E Pluribus Unum
11-03-2007, 3:46 PM
I feel this action - along with a sequence of CRPA betrayals mentioed above - in essence make these organizations 'antigun' by result, regardless of parrotted pro-gun sentiments.

This is the only thing I would disagree with Bill. They may be idiots; they may have furthered the anti-gun agenda. That alone does not make them anti. Anti-gun organizations plot and lobby with the agenda to impact gun rights in a negative fashion. I cannot believe that the CRPA and the GOC do this.

It is more likely that they are simply willing to compromise more than you or I in the fight. They are oblivious to the fact that there is a "give an inch take a foot" mentality in the legislature.

Other than that... I thought it was a great response.

On another note; all of this division hurts us; we need to be united on our stance, whatever that might be.

metalhead357
11-03-2007, 3:52 PM
It is more likely that they are simply willing to compromise more than you or I in the fight. They are oblivious to the fact that there is a "give an inch take a foot" mentality in the legislature.



On another note; all of this division hurts us; we need to be united on our stance, whatever that might be.


Amen. And bit II was EXACTLY what I was meaning in the other thread about divide and conquer. WE DO NOT want division between us...provided of course 'they' are truly PRO gun and not anti;)

Mute
11-03-2007, 4:13 PM
Here's my feeling on the unity front. These organizations have guns and rifles and pistols in their names. There should be NO OTHER AGENDA to which they give their attention. They need to stick with firearms rights issues only and leave the other items to other groups, especially if they want the support of gun owners.

They also need accountability if they want paying members. I've never seen an action plan or a after action report from these people.

bwiese
11-03-2007, 4:25 PM
Here's my feeling on the unity front. These organizations have guns and rifles and pistols in their names. There should be NO OTHER AGENDA to which they give their attention. They need to stick with firearms rights issues only and leave the other items to other groups, especially if they want the support of gun owners.

The problem is that these organizations - at least CRPA or its contract lobbyists - may represent the specific interests of large sporting good retailers instead of CA RKBA for all. So then you get issues like de facto support of SB15 safe handgun Roster, which benefits large sporting chains, as well as CRPA lobbyist support of last year's mail-order ammo ban by Torrico. In addition Kathy etc. represent other interests that may allow some 'horse trading' - they may get what they want in another non-gun arena for compromising down some aspect of a gun bill.

It may indeed be that CRPA *itself* does not support such dealings, but when their contract lobbyists Gerry Upholt & (what is rumored to be his girlfriend) Kathy Lynch do, then it's time to clean house to nip that behavior. Unfortunately CRPA seems to be intimately tied in with these two, so that severability won't happen without external pressure.

BigDogatPlay
11-03-2007, 4:37 PM
It sounds to me like it's time at CRPA for the same kind of action that brought Harlon Carter to the office of EVP at NRA at the 1977 annual meeting after the organization's leadership endorsed a series of rights eroding bills over a period of years.

Either that or my CRPA membership lapses and doesn't get renewed.

tgriffin
11-03-2007, 4:39 PM
Solid burn.

anothergunnut
11-03-2007, 6:52 PM
The biggest supporters of the Gun Control Act of 1968 were the domestic arms manufacturers. They were happy to sell out gun owners in exchange for protection from foreign imports. We should never forget that the gun manufacturers and retailers do not always have the same interests as us. Gun rights organizations need to decide who they represent; SAAMI and others can represent the manufacturers.

hoffmang
11-03-2007, 7:05 PM
To me it really was that simple.

Speaking of rats. Remember, it was gun owners and conservatives who gathered the signatures necessary to recall Gray Davis so that Arnold could become Governor in the first place. And while Arnold may have his own motivations, political and otherwise, so do the voters who put him in office.

And this is the problem with term limits. What are we gonna do? Vote him out when he's termed out?

Maybe those in the pro-gun community who went after Hanna should have thought through that Arnie has a free hand. Results matter.

-Gene

N6ATF
11-03-2007, 8:30 PM
Col. Sam: "You want answers?"
Lt. Bill: "I think I'm entitled to them!"
Col. Sam: "You want ANSWERS?"
Lt. Bill: "I Want The Truth!"
Col. Sam: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Son, we live in a world with walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?...."


Just another henchman, watching and waiting! :rolleyes:

+1, was waiting to scroll onto that!

1911_sfca
11-03-2007, 8:36 PM
And it's Bill Wiese for the win. Booyah.

Sam Hainn
11-03-2007, 9:14 PM
Correct. Politics is about making things happen - and for that to occur you have to keep things right on your own side.

Politics is also about people being human and reacting to being screwed over.

People keep thinking that there has to be rationality in politics - and there's plenty of irrationality until you allow for human factors - pride, screw-over, what-have-you.

Just as AB50 was a bone to those liberals who previously opposed Arnold's emergency CA budget (needing approval) - powerful votes that would lead others to approve Arnold's budget plans.

It was politics, like this Hollingsworth letter deal. AB50 was a gift to those who could help get Arnold's budget OKed. Arnold wouldn't have signed AB50 if he hadn't needed his reform budget & bond approvals approved so badly. I beleive Koretz and a few others coerced Arnold into signing AB50 as about the same time Koretz flipped on the budget support for nay to yay. Arnold sacrificed a small number of gun owners for his budget OK, but vetoed the .10 cents per bullet fee bill and some other anti-gun bills at the same time.

bg
11-03-2007, 9:59 PM
It was politics, like this Hollingsworth letter deal. AB50 was a gift to those who could help get Arnold's budget OKed.
I agree. AS pays back those who either help him or don't..That's why
Jay Leno was so PO at him when he sighed the bill that made smog checks
for cars 1976 and above mandatory every two years for the vehicles
life. That fired up a LOT of people. Used to be when a ride hit the it's 30
year mark that was it. AS sure fixed that with a stroke of his pen.

Signing that moronic bill affected a LOT of rides both on AND off road as
well as Kit car like fiberglass VW bajas, etc..I wonder who he was paying
back when he did that ?

Sorry to go off topic, but trusting AS is a gamble any way you look at it,

bridgeport
11-03-2007, 10:07 PM
Yes, it is a sad fact that the sporting firearms industry has collaborated with the antis to promote legislation damaging to the free trade, ownership and use of various arms and ammunition, but true it is. There is an old saying "they dont call it show friendship, its show business", and so it goes
with politics and business.... and the governor knows both.

Sam Hainn
11-03-2007, 11:16 PM
I agree. AS pays back those who either help him or don't..That's why
Jay Leno was so PO at him when he sighed the bill that made smog checks
for cars 1976 and above mandatory every two years for the vehicles
life. That fired up a LOT of people. Used to be when a ride hit the it's 30
year mark that was it. AS sure fixed that with a stroke of his pen.

Signing that moronic bill affected a LOT of rides both on AND off road as
well as Kit car like fiberglass VW bajas, etc..I wonder who he was paying
back when he did that ?

Sorry to go off topic, but trusting AS is a gamble any way you look at it,

No, it used to be that anything after 1966 had to get smog tested. Until about 1997. WOW! funny you brought up SB42 which Gov Pete Wilson signed into law long ago. I worked to get that one passed. as you said, the bill had as cars hit 30 years old and older after 1975, for each following year, they would be exempted. Arnold overturned that portion & I don't think the older collector car types with money cared. All they ever wanted was for cars 1966 to 1973 to get the exemption. Hmm. Sounds like the SASS guys. :rolleyes: Few of them care about any cars from mid 1970s through to 1990 (except for certain Mustangs, Corvettes, and Buick GNs and GNXs) and most of them are confused by the technology of any cars after 1990. But they are smart enough to know that most cars after 1990 have CPU/electronic run emissions equipment & will usually pass smog tests no matter how much mileage they've seen - if not, they're easy to decode & fix. It's all the vacuum-run sensor equipped carbureted and CFI engines from the 1970's and 1980's that are doomed for the junk yard. Electornic sensors wears better and last longer than mechanical, and as mechanical parts are no longer made (vacuum smog equipment) say goodbye to the whole car! Or Non-op it until someone makes the part.:(

metalhead357
11-03-2007, 11:34 PM
Ok, complete side issue on the smog...but trust me- I've dealt with it. For SMOG I it was cars prior to '66 that were exempt. Smog II let cars 30 years and OLDER not have to get smogged. It rolled up to 1976 and earlier that did not have to get smogged and STOPED there due to arnie.... I had been holding onto my truck (a lil' past '76) in anticipation it would make it to my year....but no dice, so every two I'm stuck on the sniffer:mad:

ALL politicians will sell you out given enough time. But for how much time I've had with politicians you'd think that it'd be ABOUT TIME for the pendulum to start swinging in OUR favor...in favor of 4x4's, guns, racers, etc......

Think I've got a better chance of polishing a turd and selling it on E-bay as mother terresa's likeness sooner than have a politician vote for something I actually give a dam about..........

//rant off

Steyr_223
11-04-2007, 1:26 AM
tag

pnkssbtz
11-04-2007, 3:55 AM
Wes and Bill put forth an excellent argument.

First Wes's timeliness of events disprove clearly the possibility of the Hollingsworth letter to be used as means of stopping AB 821 from reaching the Governor's Desk since AB 821 arrived at the .gov's desk first.


Second, Bill has posted affirmation that his allegations of individuals involved with the GoC and CRPA are if not out right, act within the same parameters as lobbyists. (SB15, Ammo Mail Order Ban, etc.)



These are irrefutable facts.

In the case of Wes's time lines, the only unknowns are who originated the Hollingsworth letter and what the actual intent was, which we will never know. However given the timing, the Hollingsworth has proven detrimental to gun owners of california.


Bill's posts of the real connections of the Lobbyists, or people who act for the same reasons along the same parameters as Lobbyists, shows what those agencies real goals are.



Talk is cheap. Action and deeds is all I care to see.

tenpercentfirearms
11-04-2007, 8:01 AM
Alright, it is time to move on. We got our butts handed to us, but sitting around realizing we were screwed by our own people isn't helping. We need to move forward. Over the last two years I have learned who is actually the best at the gun game here in California and it isn't the group I used to think it was.

It appears to me that the NRA is large enough they don't have to pander to other individuals for operating funds and their main focus seems to be the Second Amendment. I have seen first hand that the other groups also serve the interests of the retailers' and manufacturers' and that is not always in the best interests of the Second Amendment, but the pocket books of the industry.

What is clear is these groups are locked in a petty battle to fight for our precious operating funds and for the ego of making that money. It isn't right, but it is what it is. I'll make it easy on them all, I am only giving money to the NRA. If I were in Hollinsworth's district I wouldn't be voting for him either. Arnold is termed out so I can't do anything to him unless he runs for something else. That settles this one for me and I am moving on.

M. Sage
11-04-2007, 10:08 AM
Alright, it is time to move on.

I agree. This one seems like it's been hashed out as far as it can go.

Great essay on it, TPF.

Lockage, unless another mod or Kestryll thinks otherwise.

Kestryll
11-04-2007, 1:18 PM
I agree. This one seems like it's been hashed out as far as it can go.

Great essay on it, TPF.

Lockage, unless another mod or Kestryll thinks otherwise.

I'm going to agree with M. Sage here, this matter has been hased out and still has an open thread on the subject in this forum.

As for the response, unless Mr. Parades decides to join and elaborate on this issue what we have here is hardly enough to build a counterpoint on.

If Mr. Parades does decide to join and wants to add to this thread I will reopen it for him without hesitation. Until then the speculation based on limited facts is kind of a waste.