ANOTHER WIN! Cal Appeals court refuses to revive SF Gun Ban

[1911_sfca]

Looks like we won another battle, and perhaps the entire war, on the Prop H gun ban.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/09/BAQIUC21G.DTL&tsp=1

Appeals court won't reinstate S.F. handgun ban

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

(01-09) 11:53 PST SAN FRANCISCO - A state appeals court refused today to revive a ban on handgun possession in San Francisco, saying the measure that city voters approved in November 2005 conflicts with state law.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said local governments in California have no authority to prohibit handguns. Warren said a California law that authorizes police agencies to issue concealed-weapon permits implicitly forbids a city or county to ban handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

The San Francisco measure, Proposition H, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.

Prop. H was challenged by the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after voters passed the measure, 58 percent to 42 percent. Enforcement has been suspended since the suit was filed.

In today's 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited its own 1982 decision overturning a San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession within city limits.

Sponsors of Prop. H had hoped to comply with that ruling by drafting a narrower measure that applied only to San Francisco residents. But the court said the 1982 decision properly interpreted state law as "depriving local entities of any power to regulate handgun possession on private property."

The court declined San Francisco's request to allow the city to enforce the ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the ordinance to narrow its scope.

Noting the existence of state gun laws, Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo said, "When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

The ruling can be read at links.sfgate.com/ZCAF.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

[scootergmc]

Looks like we won another battle, and perhaps the entire war, on the Prop H gun ban.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/09/BAQIUC21G.DTL&tsp=1



You can also read the actual opinion here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A115018.PDF


Edit: Notice the Counsel for Respondents on page 25

[Shane916]

Prop. H was challenged by the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after voters passed the measure, 58 percent to 42 percent. Enforcement has been suspended since the suit was filed.


That's what I'm talking about!!

[1911_sfca]

Warren said a California law that authorizes police agencies to issue concealed-weapon permits implicitly forbids a city or county to ban handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

Interesting that gun rights in SF may have been partially saved by CCWs from other counties, which almost no one in SF can get. How ironic.

[scootergmc]

The cliffsnotes conclusion:

H. Conclusion
We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Prop H is invalid as preempted by state law. As the City repeatedly emphasizes, the statutes governing firearms have been “carefully worded to avoid any broad preemptive effect.” (CRPA, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314.) Nevertheless, the sheer breadth of Prop H makes it vulnerable to a preemption challenge. As already noted, Section 2 of Prop H bans the “sale, manufacture, transfer or distribution” of ammunition and firearms in the City, without exception. (Italics added.) With narrow exceptions, Section 3 bans the possession of handguns by San Francisco residents, including possession within the sanctity of homes, businesses, and private property. (Italics added.) We wish to stress that the goal of any local authority wishing to legislate in the area of gun control should be to accommodate the local interest with the least possible interference with state law. As we have seen, while courts have tolerated subtle local encroachment into the field of firearms regulation (CRPA, Great Western, Nordyke), laws which significantly intrude upon the state prerogative have been uniformly struck down as preempted (Doe, Sippel). Therefore, when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly. (See California Dreamin’, supra, 30 U.S.F. L.Rev. 395.)

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Petitioners are entitled to their costs on appeal.

BTW, this ruling is not surprising at all. It was quite expected, at least on my part, and I'm sure others.

[DrjonesUSA]

Prop. H was challenged by the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after voters passed the measure, 58 percent to 42 percent. Enforcement has been suspended since the suit was filed.




Bu....but.....the NRA doesn't DO anything here in California!!!

They've forsaken us!!!!

They are our ENEMY, not our friend!!!!

:D

[jdberger]

Bu....but.....the NRA doesn't DO anything here in California!!!

They've forsaken us!!!!

They are our ENEMY, not our friend!!!!

:D

All they do is ask for money....:rolleyes:

Yay. Another win for us! Chippin' away at those who want to curtail our freedoms....

[kap]

The court declined San Francisco's request to allow the city to enforce the ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the ordinance to narrow its scope.

What is this about? Now SF is just going to switch to banning long guns instead? This seems a little manic to me.

[Rob P.]

The judgment is affirmed. Petitioners are entitled to their costs on appeal.

The BEST part is the second sentence. SF has to PAY the NRA's costs.

So, not only did they cost the taxpayers money for a rotten law they get to pay MORE for trying to fight it. Someone needs to find out the nitty gritty costs details & point this out to the SF news media. Could make an interesting re-election theme in the future.

[Soldier415]

I propose that to celebrate, you all come and purchase a new handgun from us, as we are right across the Golden Gate Bridge from S.F.

:D

[Liberty1]

Sounds like localities can't prohibit open carry in public too provided one is in compliance with state law.

[bwiese]

Chuck M. has his dancing shoes on - the Snoopy 'happy dance' ;)

[What Just Happened?]

YAY

[tombinghamthegreat]

A small victory but could this be merged with the current supreme court DC gun ban case?

[Liberty1]

A small victory but could this be merged with the current supreme court DC gun ban case?

This was not a federal 2nd A. issue for the CA Courts. It was a state constitutional preemption case. It was defeated for the same reason localities can't write their own vehicle codes.

[apbrian112]

yay! for the citizens of SF... i don't know why but everytime i visit up there (my best friend's in law school up there) my skin starts to crawl and i become extremely irritable. i'm guessing its from all the hippies and liberals...

[Ironchef]

I wanna go up to Daly and do one of these!
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/684393/2/istockphoto_684393_neener.jpg

[Blackwater OPS]

Chuck M. has his dancing shoes on - the Snoopy 'happy dance' ;)

Yes, I can confirm a jovial mood is prevailing at TMLLP. The decision is also posted at Calgunlaws (http://www.calgunlaws.com) for your viewing pleasure.

[bdsmchs]

This whole thread gives me a real warm-fuzzy feeling of nostalgia.

Back when I was 19 and worked right in downtown SF, I used to walk the 2 blocks to the SF Gun Exchange. That place is still, to this day, the gun store that I am the most fond of. So friendly, they had supplies and EVERY kind of gun. They weren't a hoity-toity snob type of place that only carried long guns. They didn't look at you funny if you were admiring the O/U trap guns and didn't look like you could afford them. They had black powder, handguns, "Assault Weapons", expensive trap/skeet shotguns, and simple scatterguns. And they had a guy in the store who could talk about at least any one kind of shooting you wanted to do.

Anyways, one day on my lunch break I decided to pop in and check the place out. Ended up paperworking a 10/22 :)

10 days later I walked back to my office with a Ruger 10/22 in the box, and later took the BART train home to the east bay with it sitting on the seat next to me.

That 10/22 sure looks different today, but it's still one of, if not my favorite gun.

The SF Gun Exchange finally went under due to the heavy anti-gun pressure from the city. But I was glad to give them my hard-earned money when I could.

Now I'm in SoCal, and Turners is "ok", but it's no SF Gun Exchange.

[Hunter]

NRA just sent this out

NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals
Fairfax, VA - The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

"Today's decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco," declared Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation's most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City's mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

"We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven't given up that fight," continued Cox. "Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City's attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court's first decision to overturn the ban. Now we've beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law."

Today's decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.

"This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion," concluded Cox. "I'd like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms."

-nra-

[glockman19]

Does anyone think this can this help overturn the ban on snubbies in LA City?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Do you think we could get a picture of the check that the City has to write to the NRA or TMLLP to cover legal costs? It would make a cool desktop picture. :D

[Dean Speir]

.

.

.
Two questions:
Why does anyone think NRA declined to credit any of the other groups which supported this appeal?
.
What was the "California Dreamin'" litigation cited in the decision?

[WokMaster1]

yay! for the citizens of SF... i don't know why but everytime i visit up there (my best friend's in law school up there) my skin starts to crawl and i become extremely irritable. i'm guessing its from all the hippies and liberals...

it's not the liberals & hippies. You've got cooties. Go see your doctor.

[scootergmc]

1. Why does anyone think NRA declined to credit any of the other groups which supported this appeal?

2. What was the "California Dreamin'" litigation cited in the decision?


1. I dunno

2. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Gorovitz1.htm (long read. prepare yourself)

[bwiese]

=
Why does anyone think NRA declined to credit any of the other
groups which supported this appeal?


Those were likely letterhead names on the case for 'diversity' to have groups other than just NRA show up.

I am fairly sure bulk (or all) funding was from NRA. I don't think GOA was present or relevant (not that it ever is).

I would not expect NRA to give much if any credit to CRPA or GOC, simply because of their prior screwups - bringing us the SB15 safe handgun laws (CRPA), or screwing the pooch & bringing in microstamping and lead ammo bans (Paredes/GOC).

[Holocanthus]

I can't believe that I live in a city where 58% of it's citizens are stupid enough to freely, and I emphasize freely, give up their constitutional rights. The government is like "The Blob" (1958). Once it comsumes something it never gives it back. That's why every right is important no matter wether you agree with it or not, because after the government comsumes a right it is then free to move onto something that you might actually care about.

[hoffmang]

This case was paid for 90+% out of NRA's pocket.

-Gene

[dfletcher]

I'd like the city's cost - including their NRA reimbursement - to be paid for by those 58% who thought it was a good idea. Or by Chris Daly.

[outersquare]

Did i read that right that SF tried banning handguns in 1982, got *****ed slapped, and then tried to do it again?
Is there any penalty against the city for trying again after already being ruled against?

[odesskiy]

This case was paid for 90+% out of NRA's pocket.

-Gene

Ummm....correction....the case was paid for 100% out of the City of San Francisco's pocket :D

[bwiese]

Ummm....correction....the case was paid for 100% out of the City of San Francisco's pocket :D

Bwaaah, so true.

BTW, it's too bad Dean Speir's here to troll for GOC/GOA. He has some good tech info & opinions otherwise.

[Phantom_Piney]

Ahh...Its great to know that the efforts of the NRA came through once again to help gun owners. Thanks NRA!!! :jump:

[boogak]

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay i am soooooooooooooooooooooo happy. damn i was scared ever since it was gonna pass. thats right you punk *****es in sf politics. thats right chumps

[Dean Speir]

.

.

This case was paid for 90+% out of NRA's pocket. Do you have a cite for this figure, Gene?

[Sampachi]

This whole thread gives me a real warm-fuzzy feeling of nostalgia.

Back when I was 19 and worked right in downtown SF, I used to walk the 2 blocks to the SF Gun Exchange. That place is still, to this day, the gun store that I am the most fond of. So friendly, they had supplies and EVERY kind of gun. They weren't a hoity-toity snob type of place that only carried long guns. They didn't look at you funny if you were admiring the O/U trap guns and didn't look like you could afford them. They had black powder, handguns, "Assault Weapons", expensive trap/skeet shotguns, and simple scatterguns. And they had a guy in the store who could talk about at least any one kind of shooting you wanted to do.

Anyways, one day on my lunch break I decided to pop in and check the place out. Ended up paperworking a 10/22 :)

10 days later I walked back to my office with a Ruger 10/22 in the box, and later took the BART train home to the east bay with it sitting on the seat next to me.

That 10/22 sure looks different today, but it's still one of, if not my favorite gun.

The SF Gun Exchange finally went under due to the heavy anti-gun pressure from the city. But I was glad to give them my hard-earned money when I could.

Now I'm in SoCal, and Turners is "ok", but it's no SF Gun Exchange.

I'm an old customer of SF Gun Exchange!! I even DROS'd a pistol I bought off eBay through them. Talk about two things I can never do again. Bought about 3 pistols from them when they closed down. Awww, memories!

[Dean Speir]

.

.

BTW, it's too bad Dean Speir's here to troll for GOC/GOA. He has some good tech info & opinions otherwise. Thanks for the back-handed compliment, Bill… or is that "damning with faint praise?"

Your suggestion about GOA is not only incorrect, it's wildly so! (GOC? pffffft!)

I'm asking for information, and if you know anything about me… and apparently you do… that's what I'm about, information: verified information!

In the interests of full disclosure, although I am a long-time (full price) Life Member of NRA, I'm very interested in getting at the core of why the organization is so reluctant to share credit where credit is due. They did it in New Orleans, and they're doing it again now in San Francisco.

If they try that following any sort of successful conclusion to …Heller (which they tried multiple times and ways to derail when it was Parker…), someone should call in an air strike on NRA HQ.

[bwiese]

In the interests of full disclosure, although I am a long-time (full price) Life Member of NRA, I'm very interested in getting at the core of why the organization is so reluctant to share credit where credit is due.

I know of no other organization that participated funding-wise. Gene H. says 90% was NRA, I have no idea who the other 10% was. Perhaps some smaller groups, CCRKBA etc. The heavy lifting, as usual, was done by the NRA's California leadership (reporting to Wayne), and its lawyers at TMLLP (whom I also know). The other putative 10% funding may be nice, but it was certainly not determinative of case outcome - and if those monies were needed and not yet present it would've still come from the Big Dog, the NRA.

Some other organizations may have been glued on in letterhead form (CRPA perhaps, as a secondary, just to look 'diverse'. Haven't seen the details yet, will read up later).

In the minds of many here, GOA is well-nigh useless - it has zero legislation sponsored/passed, or stopped. It's primary goal/theme appears to Three Guys in Their Den Beat On NRA. Its supposed 'no compromise' stances make it a politically nonviable entity. I know of no legislator really afraid of a GOA rating, or really fearing GOA and then being coerced into working with them.

GOA's a nonentity out here in CA. I saw no GOA activity with all the 'off-list' semiauto rifle matters in CA over the last two years, either. It was the NRA CA leadership pushing back at the CA DOJ, with some hours burnt at the law firm.

[Also I can understand NRA's initial apprehension on Parker. They realize the Supreme Court is a living, breathing entity that undergoes change over time -and that the Court of one year is not the Court of another, and that there's risk. With Roberts and Alito on bench now, we have a shot. Before Roberts, things were shakier. NRA is a cautious non-crapshoot organization. Parker/Heller, fortunately has been structured (o rare event) to not have much downside. Chris Cox has told people I trust it will do nothing to moot Parker/Heller.]

GOA's drama-queen conduct, drama and misttatements on the recent NICS Improvement Bill alone make it an unworthwhile organization.

I'll further add this: if GOA disappeared, gun rights matters would not appreciably (if at all) change - it's just, um, irrelevant. That's too bad.

Other lower-tier gun organizations are a very touchy subject here in CA, since we've had some real problems with them. CRPA and GOC alone have screwed us and either supported bad legislation . (CRPA supported SB15 'safe handgun' laws, etc) or did stupid moves that caused bad legiislation to pass (GOC's Paredes stupidity/naivete created a situation that drove AB1471 microstamping and AB821 lead ammo ban).

[CalNRA]

Did i read that right that SF tried banning handguns in 1982, got *****ed slapped, and then tried to do it again?
Is there any penalty against the city for trying again after already being ruled against?

cocaine is a helluva drug. It causes memory loss in many people, like the slick San Fran city politicos.

[otteray]

While I am thankful for the assist of the GOA, GOC and CRPC, my greatest pride of membership, thanks and gratitude go to the NRA.
Can you imagine the negative outcome without the NRA being deeply involved?

[1911_sfca]

Umm, I was there at the court hearings, and did not hear anyone arguing except Chuck Michel and Don Kates. GOA who?

You know, I was a bit miffed that Dennis Herrerra had spent our city's money on this... but the more I think about it, I am becoming happy that he made the appeal.

Basically, he appealed an almost surely losing case, which caused:

1. Yet another precedent-setting appeals court ruling against local gun control, this time 3-0

2. The city pays for NRA's legal fees


Looking at it that way, I am actually kinda happy he decided to appeal. Still a waste though. Daly should be dumped off the GG bridge.

[DRM6000]

Daly should be dumped off the GG bridge.


and pollute our waters? no way. he should be incinerated like the rest of the trash. wait, the smoke would pollute the air and possibly infect others creating more mindless, angry activist whackjobs. hmm...yucca mountain sounds good.

[five.five-six]

I propose that to celebrate, you all come and purchase a new handgun from us, as we are right across the Golden Gate Bridge from S.F.

:D

man, I would just love to buy a gun from your shop.. stupid waiting period

[hoffmang]

Since CRPA is such an open and transparent organization, can you tell us how much you paid TMLLP and Don Kilmer exactly? My 10% estimate was that I assume you at least paid Kilmer something for the Amicus he wrote for you - or at least I hope you did. I'm a member (stupidly) so I'd love to know exactly how much CRPA disbursed specifically and directly to counsel in this case.

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while. Know that if you don't post it, I'll find out the order of magnitude.

-Gene

[1911_sfca]

I propose that to celebrate, you all come and purchase a new handgun from us, as we are right across the Golden Gate Bridge from S.F.

:D

Heh, wouldn't it make more sense to purchase a new gun from the only remaining SF gun store, High Bridge Arms? :D

[tboyer]

Appeals court won't reinstate S.F. handgun ban
It looks like we won another battle, and perhaps the war, against Prop H.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/09/BAQIUC21G.DTL&tsp=1



http://tinyurl.com/2mvjeb





You may want to respond to this one comment that was on the page four of the view page

under comments



C'mon, folks, stop invoking the 2nd amendment just because you're too lazy to read the first half of the sentence. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Are any of you members of a well-regulated militia? Is there anything you keep in your attics that would protect you against undue governmental tyrany? I didn't think so. Gun laws like this one aren't designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals per se. As has been noted, criminals get guns anyway. What they do is give police another tool for prosecuting said criminals. If you've got gang members hanging around, for example, there's not much the police can do until they actually commit a crime. With a law like this, they'd be able to get them off the street just for carrying the gun, rather than waiting until they used it. Seems a reasonable idea to me.






Appeals court won't reinstate S.F. handgun ban
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

(01-09) 11:53 PST SAN FRANCISCO - A state appeals court refused today to revive a ban on handgun possession in San Francisco, saying the measure that city voters approved in November 2005 conflicts with state law.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said local governments in California have no authority to prohibit handguns. Warren said a California law that authorizes police agencies to issue concealed-weapon permits implicitly forbids a city or county to ban handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

The San Francisco measure, Proposition H, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.

Prop. H was challenged by the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after voters passed the measure, 58 percent to 42 percent. Enforcement has been suspended since the suit was filed.

In today's 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited its own 1982 decision overturning a San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession within city limits.

Sponsors of Prop. H had hoped to comply with that ruling by drafting a narrower measure that applied only to San Francisco residents. But the court said the 1982 decision properly interpreted state law as "depriving local entities of any power to regulate handgun possession on private property."

The court declined San Francisco's request to allow the city to enforce the ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the ordinance to narrow its scope.

Noting the existence of state gun laws, Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo said, "When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

The ruling can be read at links.sfgate.com/ZCAF.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

[bwiese]

dupe!

[odesskiy]

I was waiting for a dupe nazi to show up :D

[CALI-gula]

In today's 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited its own 1982 decision overturning a San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession within city limits.

Noting the existence of state gun laws, Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo said, "When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."


HA HA! What a waste of taxpayer's money all along, for an outcome they knew would occur.

.

[N6ATF]

:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=81707

[dwtt]

[QUOTE=Dean Speir;928118]

In the interests of full disclosure, although I am a long-time (full price) Life Member of NRA, I'm very interested in getting at the core of why the organization is so reluctant to share credit where credit is due. They did it in New Orleans, and they're doing it again now in San Francisco.
QUOTE]

I think you have it the other way around. The NRA does all the work and other groups take credit. I know about GOC's involvement in trying to stop Prop H before it was voted on. They helped me get a booth at the Cow Palace gun show. Although this saved me some money, that's _all_ GOC did to oppose Prop H. CRPA wasn't anywhere to be found.
If you went to the Cow Palace gun show and saw a booth with the "No on Prop H" banner, you would have found me or one of the other Golden Gate Member's Council volunteers. Noone from GOC or CRPA helped out. I put GOC's logo on the banner in appreciation of their effort to get me a booth but that's the full extent of their help. The flyers on the table were printed with money donated by local NRA members. The signs and flyers posted on city streets opposing Prop H were paid for by NRA volunteers and put up by GGMC NRA members. The people who went to neighborhood meetings and opposed Daly were local NRA members.
Often when the NRA is successful in stopping or overturning an anti-gun law, CRPA and GOC will try to claim credit, but when you see the people who are out there putting in their own time and money to stop these laws at the grass roots level, it's always NRA.

[Paladin]

:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=81707
When N6ATF is online, this forum is a safer place for women and children.

"Thank you, Dupeman."

[Hopi]

:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=81707

Dupeman is so powerful that even his Dupe is a Dupe.......

[BigDogatPlay]

You know, I was a bit miffed that Dennis Herrerra had spent our city's money on this... but the more I think about it, I am becoming happy that he made the appeal.

Basically, he appealed an almost surely losing case, which caused:

1. Yet another precedent-setting appeals court ruling against local gun control, this time 3-0

2. The city pays for NRA's legal fees


Looking at it that way, I am actually kinda happy he decided to appeal. Still a waste though. Daly should be dumped off the GG bridge.

Can Gavin Newsom take some of the fall as well? He was quoted prior to the election where this proposition was voted as saying he (implying everyone in city government) knew the ordinance would never stand a legal challenge on preemption. He friggin' knew it and he, Chris Daly and the rest went ahead with it pursuing (yet again) their agenda of style over substance.

It made me want to vomit when Gavin was sworn in for a second term the other day. I was born and raised in the city but it sure ain't my hometown.

[otalps]

Does anyone think this can this help overturn the ban on snubbies in LA City?

Snub noses are banned in LA?

[50 Freak]

As a resident of SF, that is my money well spent. Paying the NRA's legal fees to basically ***** slap Daley and his fellow knuckleheads.

Sure beats using my money to pay for Newsome's hooker and booze parties.

[Archer]

Is it now safe to carry CCW in S.F. or will S.F.P.D. still confiscate your firearm? That was the rumor I was warned about in CCW class 6 months ago.

[glockman19]

Snub noses are banned in LA?

You can't buy in LA City. You can posess but can't buy. Turners Reseda won't sell 3" barrel guns, Pasadena will.

[dfletcher]

Did i read that right that SF tried banning handguns in 1982, got *****ed slapped, and then tried to do it again?
Is there any penalty against the city for trying again after already being ruled against?

That's correct, they did try it in 1982. And in 1972 the city tried to require that an individual purchasing a concealable gun obtain some sort of city permit to do so. Not a state issued CCW (which they'd never get) but what would best be described as a "buy permit". That was struck down.

The lesson is that the city will read this latest opinion, look for what is acceptable to the court and try again. I think the courts issue subtle instructions in their decisions and it would be wise for us read critically what SF may do next to accomplish their goals.

I would wonder, is there anything in the court's decision that can be used to move against the SF ordinance requiring handguns be kept locked and unloaded? It seems to me the court takes state pre-emption seriously and the state has clearly spoken on this specific subject via safes, gun locks and child safety.

[rue]

Do you feel lucky punk? Do you!

[ivanimal]

Merged duplicate threads.

[69Mach1]

Great start to the new year.

[Soldier415]

man, I would just love to buy a gun from your shop.. stupid waiting period

Yes, but at least with us you can come shoot your gun during it's 10 day purgatory.

Oh, and we give you a complimentary range pass so you can come and do just that ;)

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Is it now safe to carry CCW in S.F. or will S.F.P.D. still confiscate your firearm? That was the rumor I was warned about in CCW class 6 months ago.
Myth and rumor. If you have a valid current CCW issued by the state DOJ, unless it has restrictions on it, you can CCW pretty much anywhere in the state. And that includes SF. Been doing it every day since 1999.
Always carry with pride, but carry with discretion.

[bwiese]

Myth and rumor. If you have a valid current CCW issued by the state DOJ, unless it has restrictions on it, you can CCW pretty much anywhere in the state. And that includes SF. Been doing it every day since 1999. Always carry with pride, but carry with discretion.

There was an arrest a few months ago in Hollister for a legit person w/ legit CCW papers (and who was not screwing up, just a traffic stop).

The cop dishonored the CCW, arrested the person, etc. I believe charges were never filed, but I think Don Kilmer is on the case for, um, "further processing" :) (Will have to ask next time I talk to him.)

[hoffmang]

Since CRPA is such an open and transparent organization, can you tell us how much you paid TMLLP and Don Kilmer exactly? My 10% estimate was that I assume you at least paid Kilmer something for the Amicus he wrote for you - or at least I hope you did. I'm a member (stupidly) so I'd love to know exactly how much CRPA disbursed specifically and directly to counsel in this case.


Hey Dean Speir - I'm still waiting. You have an answer for me yet?

:gene:

-Gene

[paradox]

and pollute our waters? no way. he should be incinerated like the rest of the trash. wait, the smoke would pollute the air and possibly infect others creating more mindless, angry activist whackjobs. hmm...yucca mountain sounds good.

This is as green as you're going to get...

http://www.foreverfernwood.com/

It's close too.

[Dean Speir]

Hey Dean Speir - I'm still waiting. You have an answer for me yet?
-Gene Hey Hoffmang - I'm still waiting for you, Gene, to ask me, Dean, a question!

You seem to have me confused with someone involved with CRPA.

I asked you, Gene, for a cite your your "90%" figure… and I'm still waiting on that.

Second Amendment Foundation has already put at least $15,000 into the San Francisco lawsuit, which figure may turn out to me as much as $25,000. NRA asserts that they've coughed up "$80,000," but that probably includes LEAA's portion and that of CRPA, so the "90%" doubtless came from someone's paper sphincter.

BTW, in the interminable New Orleans lawsuits, the costs were split down the middle by SAF and NRA… and NRA steadfastly insists on taking all the credit for the success there.

Something's rotten on the eight and ninth floors of HRA HQ, and as long as the rank 'n' file wander around with their heads wedged, it's never going to get any better.

[hoffmang]

First, I'll take responsibility for my words. I spoke them and the 90% was my estimate. I know something about the costs of litigation.

TMLLP's bills were paid by CA-NRA. I expect they were north of $100K before the appeal. Kilmer wrote two Amicus and I expect each of them cost between $7.5K to $10K. I'm assuming that CRPA picked up the one with their name on it. I know of at least one disqualified Amicus brief that cost $8K that was paid for by NRA.

Using those estimates, before the appeal NRA had ~$110K minimum in compared to CRPA at a generous $10K estimate. That puts NRA's contribution at 91% on the back of my envelope.

I'm glad to hear that SAF put $20Kish in - which is not in my estimate above. Fixing NRA at $110K (which I expect is laughably low) that means that SAF contributed about 15% in the best case. Thanks, but it still looks like NRA risked the most capital on this one.

So Dean - are you just repping SAF, GOC, and GOA? It certainly sounded like you were trying to defend CRPA and I'm sorry I got that wrong earlier. However you seem to have an agenda to attempt to undermine the NRA's contribution on this one..

NRA is not infallible and if you've got something credible to complain about, I'm all ears. I'm still unhappy with certain antics in DC back a couple of years. However it looks to me like NRA learned from that.

What I do know is that the NRA in California in the least 2-3 years in California has been very effective and very supportive at all turns and that other supposed pro-gun California organizations - well, not so much...

-Gene

[Soldier415]

First, I'll take responsibility for my words. I spoke them and the 90% was my estimate. I know something about the costs of litigation.

TMLLP's bills were paid by CA-NRA. I expect they were north of $100K before the appeal. Kilmer wrote two Amicus and I expect each of them cost between $7.5K to $10K. I'm assuming that CRPA picked up the one with their name on it. I know of at least one disqualified Amicus brief that cost $8K that was paid for by NRA.

Using those estimates, before the appeal NRA had ~$110K minimum in compared to CRPA at a generous $10K estimate. That puts NRA's contribution at 91% on the back of my envelope.

I'm glad to hear that SAF put $20Kish in - which is not in my estimate above. Fixing NRA at $110K (which I expect is laughably low) that means that SAF contributed about 15% in the best case. Thanks, but it still looks like NRA risked the most capital on this one.

So Dean - are you just repping SAF, GOC, and GOA? It certainly sounded like you were trying to defend CRPA and I'm sorry I got that wrong earlier. However you seem to have an agenda to attempt to undermine the NRA's contribution on this one..

NRA is not infallible and if you've got something credible to complain about, I'm all ears. I'm still unhappy with certain antics in DC back a couple of years. However it looks to me like NRA learned from that.

What I do know is that the NRA in California in the least 2-3 years in California has been very effective and very supportive at all turns and that other supposed pro-gun California organizations - well, not so much...

-Gene

*Ahem*

:owned:

[QuarterBoreGunner]

There was an arrest a few months ago in Hollister for a legit person w/ legit CCW papers (and who was not screwing up, just a traffic stop).

Bill, please PM me any other details if you have them, I'd like to follow this if possible.

[bwiese]

Bill, please PM me any other details if you have them, I'd like to follow this if possible.

That's all I have right now, will let you know more if I find out...

[oaklander]

I read with interest the SAF's press release at http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=254 in which they claimed that they "[were] joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens."

I don't see the SAF anywhere on this thing:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A115018.PDF

Am I missing something?

Trial Court: San Francisco County Superior Court
Trial Judge: Hon. Paul H. Alvarado
Hon. James L. Warren
Counsel for Appellants: Dennis J. Herrera
San Francisco City Attorney
Wayne Snodgrass
Vince Chhabria
Deputy City Attorneys
Counsel for Respondents: Trutanich􀁹Michel, C. D. Michel,
Don B. Kates, Glenn S. McRoberts and
Thomas E. Maciejewski
Counsel for Amicus Curiae on Michael S. Hebel for The San Francisco
Behalf of Respondents: Police Officers Association as Amicus Curiae
on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents
Law Office of Donald Kilmer, Donald E.
Kilmer, Jr. for Gun Owners of California,
Senator H. L. Richardson (ret.), and
The Madison Society as Amici Curiae
on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents
Law Office of Donald Kilmer, Donald E.
Kilmer, Jr. for California Rifle & Pistol
Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of Plaintiffs and Respondents
Law Offices of Bruce Colodny, Bruce Colodny
for American Entertainment Armories
Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Plaintiffs and Respondents


Hey Hoffmang - I'm still waiting for you, Gene, to ask me, Dean, a question!

You seem to have me confused with someone involved with CRPA.

I asked you, Gene, for a cite your your "90%" figure… and I'm still waiting on that.

Second Amendment Foundation has already put at least $15,000 into the San Francisco lawsuit, which figure may turn out to me as much as $25,000. NRA asserts that they've coughed up "$80,000," but that probably includes LEAA's portion and that of CRPA, so the "90%" doubtless came from someone's paper sphincter.

BTW, in the interminable New Orleans lawsuits, the costs were split down the middle by SAF and NRA… and NRA steadfastly insists on taking all the credit for the success there.

Something's rotten on the eight and ninth floors of HRA HQ, and as long as the rank 'n' file wander around with their heads wedged, it's never going to get any better.

[Dean Speir]

.

.

So Dean - are you just repping SAF, GOC, and GOA? It certainly sounded like you were trying to defend CRPA and I'm sorry I got that wrong earlier. However you seem to have an agenda to attempt to undermine the NRA's contribution on this one..

NRA is not infallible and if you've got something credible to complain about, I'm all ears. I'm still unhappy with certain antics in DC back a couple of years. However it looks to me like NRA learned from that.

What I do know is that the NRA in California in the least 2-3 years in California has been very effective and very supportive at all turns and that other supposed pro-gun California organizations - well, not so much... Thanks for something substantive, Gene.

First, I've already disclosed my "agenda," #1, and, #2, stated that I have nothing to do with GOA or its California arm. Did you miss that?

My sole association with SAF is that I was Industry Editor for their Gun Week publication from '90 to '94, but I do like their approach.

What I don't like is how out of control the NRA has gotten, and I'm glad that a number here feel that they've done a good job in California over the past several years… my impression, however, is that it wasn't always that way.

I am a long-time NRA Life Member, and a full-price one… not one of Wayne LaPierre's disgusting "firesale" or cut rate Lifers! And the SOB is doing it again this month, offering me an upgrade to Endowment, I think it is, for $175.00! (Hey, Wayne, why doncha head down to San Diego where you can hike up your skirts and whistle qat sailors!?!)

I've been on their case for years, ever since the Staff and Vendors took back control of the NRA from the members, and wiped out the Membership gains fought for and bitterly won in Cincinnati 31 years ago. I won't bore here anyone further, but I've laid it out with The NRA's organization's "institutional arrogance" and anti-Second Amendment actions (http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-40.html) for anyone who's interested.

Am I missing something? My understanding of that situation, after an interview with SAF's Alan Gottleib this afternoon, stems from the fact that, unlike the New Orleans lawsuit which was "split straight down the middle between SAF and NRA," the NRA insisted on the full billing to them, and SAF's checks to Kilmer were deducted from his invoices.

NRA, as Richie Feldman notes in his recent volume, Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist (http://www.thegunzone.com/software/ricochet.html), is the 800 pound gorilla, but the act like they are the only game in town. They aren't, and that was the genesis of my original question here.

.

[hoffmang]

Dean,

I share certain concerns about we Californians think of as NRA national, but I can tell you that the local CA group is dramatically effective. We'd be long disarmed in California in the last 4 years or so without the current team here and know that what happens in California spreads like the 1919 flu on a Concorde.

Bringing up New Orleans is interesting. I think NRA and SAF have done a good job sharing credit for that. I've certainly known it as a joint project.

Welcome to Calguns Dean. Come help. We get things done around here in the home of LCAV.

-Gene

[Dean Speir]

.

.

Bringing up New Orleans is interesting. I think NRA and SAF have done a good job sharing credit for that. I've certainly known it as a joint project. My point, Gene, is that you and I may know that, but not from NRA. They are institutionally incapable of being gracious to anyone else on the pro-gun side.

And their whole track record with the Parker… D.C. …Heller litigation has been nothing short of disgraceful, having attempted to first co-opt it, and then, when that effort to have their suit consolidated with the so far successful one brought by Levy and Gura failed, to undermine it with legislation to render Parker v. D.C. moot.

But I'm genuinely delighted that your state organization has been effective… your state and mine account for four of the most anti-gun Senators in the history of Congress, and when you throw in adjoining Noo Joisey and Massachusetts, there's a block of formidible gun-grabbing activists throwing their weight around the Senate floor.

BTW: That influenza epidemic, while it over-lapped into the following year, was in 1918. (No, I wasn't there….)

.

[hoffmang]

1919, 1918... You caught the reference.

I too had issues with DC related tomfoolery. I know that quite a few NRA members like myself made sure that the preemption BS was not going to be put up with and I think that message was heard clearly at the annual meeting.

-Gene

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Welcome to Calguns Dean. Come help. We get things done around here in the home of LCAV.

-Gene

What's LCAV stand for?

[N6ATF]

Yes, but at least with us you can come shoot your gun during it's 10 day purgatory.

Oh, and we give you a complimentary range pass so you can come and do just that ;)

Real Men of Genius...

[hoffmang]

What's LCAV stand for?

A most reprehensible group of civil rights violators:
http://www.lcav.org/

-Gene

[artherd]

While NRA (especially national) is not without it's problems... I know for a fact, based on first-person accounts in confidence:
1) Without NRA Prop H would have become existing law, and been even more far-sweeping than it already was.
2) Without NRA the law would not have been challenged.
3) Without NRA the law would not have been (essentially) mooted, and eventually repealed.

[artherd]

NRA asserts that they've coughed up "$80,000,"
I believe you've (roughly) missed a zero...

[Dean Speir]

.

.
While NRA (especially national) is not without it's problems... I know for a fact, based on first-person accounts in confidence:
1) Without NRA Prop H would have become existing law, and been even more far-sweeping than it already was.
2) Without NRA the law would not have been challenged.
3) Without NRA the law would not have been (essentially) mooted, and eventually repealed.
And if it was passed and doomed to be successfully challenged, what matter how "far-sweeping" it might have been?!
.
That assertion is without merit. Whoever told you this "in confidence" is blowing smoke up your fundamental orifice.
.
Conjecture, and prima facie silly. The City's legislation was "illegal" from the jump (and unenforceable), and they were so informed at that time. Their attitude was, "so sue us." NRA was but one (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/10/BAGGCFLLCI1.DTL) that took up the challenge, and it's nice to see that they're spending Member money on something besides Wayne LaPierre's private jet or Ack-Mac's fees.
I believe you've (roughly) missed a zero... Are you actually asserting that NRA expended $800,000 on this legal challenge? On the basis of what exactly?!?

Humor me… I'm educable, but for now pretend that I'm from Missouri.

[5968]

Yay!!!

[Blackwater OPS]

I can't really talk specifics, but this was an NRA case paid for by the NRA. CRPA did file a "friend of the court" brief at the request of TMLLP. IIRC the total cost was around $500,000.

[Dean Speir]

.

.

I can't really talk specifics, but this was an NRA case paid for by the NRA. With all due respect, sir, then you probably shouldn't be talking about it at all, then.

Just because NRA claims a case for its own, doesn't make it an "NRA case," particularly when there are others contributing substantial sums of money on behalf of gun owners.

[Soldier415]

.

.

With all due respect, sir, then you probably shouldn't be talking about it at all, then.


I agree, it's not like BWO has ANY first hand knowledge of firearms related legal cases that affect us all

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(I can only use 6 smilies, otherwise there would be a lot more)

[Blackwater OPS]

.

.

With all due respect, sir, then you probably shouldn't be talking about it at all, then.

Just because NRA claims a case for its own, doesn't make it an "NRA case," particularly when there are others contributing substantial sums of money on behalf of gun owners.

What I stated is not coming from the NRA...:rolleyes:

[bwiese]

What I stated is not coming from the NRA...:rolleyes:

BWO's in a first-hand position to know, too - having landed in the Vortex.

Interesting that outta-staters have to come here and cr*p on things. You'd almost think this was the General forum in ARFcom.

[Dean Speir]

.

.

Interesting that outta-staters have to come here and cr*p on things. Upset that anyone should challenge anyone else's assertions?

Wanna keep it California-exclusive? Petition your Webmaster to require zip codes as part of the registration process, and restrict those pesky and presumptuous "outta-staters" from posting.

[Soldier415]

.

.

Upset that anyone should challenge anyone else's assertions?

Wanna keep it California-exclusive? Petition your Webmaster to require zip codes as part of the registration process, and restrict those pesky and presumptuous "outta-staters" from posting.

Your post is both new and exciting

[Blackwater OPS]

Upset that anyone should challenge anyone else's assertions?



BTW, I'm not ignoring the Second Amendment Foundation's contribution to the prop H case, but really it was the NRA's baby. I was wondering why you would be arguing so passionately that it was not until I read "BAD! NRA BAD BAD BAD" on your website... :rolleyes:

I'm no NRA fan boy, but give credit where it is due.

[Mute]

.

.

With all due respect, sir, then you probably shouldn't be talking about it at all, then.

Just because NRA claims a case for its own, doesn't make it an "NRA case," particularly when there are others contributing substantial sums of money on behalf of gun owners.

I don't see you posting any specifics that back up your assertions.

[dfletcher]

.

.

And if it was passed and doomed to be successfully challenged, what matter how "far-sweeping" it might have been?!
.
That assertion is without merit. Whoever told you this "in confidence" is blowing smoke up your fundamental orifice.
.
Conjecture, and prima facie silly. The City's legislation was "illegal" from the jump (and unenforceable), and they were so informed at that time. Their attitude was, "so sue us." NRA was but one (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/10/BAGGCFLLCI1.DTL) that took up the challenge, and it's nice to see that they're spending Member money on something besides Wayne LaPierre's private jet or Ack-Mac's fees.
Are you actually asserting that NRA expended $800,000 on this legal challenge? On the basis of what exactly?!?

Humor me… I'm educable, but for now pretend that I'm from Missouri.

I'm not posting to point a finger at who is right, who is wrong or may be more valuable in the pro - gun fight. But as a SF resident with about 50 or so handguns, the morning after the vote I was wondering whether or not I'd have to move from the city, store my handguns elsewhere or sell them & use the money to buy rifles. Stating that the city would have been eventually defeated is of little comfort - would relief have come a few days after I'd moved or had to sell them (having an SF address would have prompted a pretty lowball offer) on the cheap?

IIRC, NRA very quickly acted and got the city to suspend enforcement until the case was adjudicated. This is a worthwhile accomplishment when your handguns are the ones they'll take away - when the handguns that sit in your safe, past a very soon approaching date, could be confiscated or subject you to criminal prosecution.

Another group would have stepped up? I hope so but that NRA immediately did is really what counts for me now.

[tango-52]

.

.

Upset that anyone should challenge anyone else's assertions?

Wanna keep it California-exclusive? Petition your Webmaster to require zip codes as part of the registration process, and restrict those pesky and presumptuous "outta-staters" from posting.

No, just tired of trolls from BATFE and the Brady Bunch. Which are you?

[Dean Speir]

.

No, just tired of trolls from BATFE and the Brady Bunch. Which are you? If you'd exhibit more than a second grade reading skill, you'd know I was neither.

I've made my case (and will continue to add to it), and even though Blackwater OPS may post an eye-rolling emoticon as an acknowledgement that he's read it, he fails to take specific issue with any of the content.

I don't see you posting any specifics that back up your assertions. Blackwater OPS found the monograph without too much trouble. It's here (http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-40.html).

.

[hoffmang]

So Dean,

Let's recap.

1. You came here.

2. Crapped on the NRA.

3. Had evidence presented to show that you were blowing smoke.

4. Then a guy (whose history you probably aren't aware of) who due to his history has some firsthand knowledge of what is going on with NRA expenditures in California gives you more information about what NRA in California has done.

5. Now you continue to call out long time posters here for unbacked up assertions with not a shred of a backed up assertion of your own.

You're a pretty poor troublemaker. The only thing you have is a politically questionable diatribe about NRA behavior - not in California. I referred to the issues you're talking about but either those got fixed by the members or you're just a sore loser whose political desires weren't adopted.

-Gene

[dwtt]

.

If you'd exhibit more than a second grade reading skill, you'd know I was neither.

Now I remember you! You're that blowhard jerk off who used to rant on people on rec.guns. Your attitude hasn't changed. What happened, did you get banned from rec.guns and have to come here for entertainment?
Unlike usenet newsgroups, I don't have a kill file for calguns, but if there were, Dean Speir would be in it. I'll ignore all the noise you generate from this point on, because it's about as useful as the crap you used to write.

[M. Sage]

Getting rather off-topic, aren't we?

Also, requiring a zip code for registration would be silly on so many levels. For obvious (to us, anyway) reasons, certain Californians are loathe to give out their location info so easily. Also, it takes an idiot a few seconds to find him/herself a valid CA zip on the internet.

I know, as I'm an idiot (computer-wise, anyway) and tried it just to see if I could.

[NRAhighpowershooter]

Some disgrunteled(maybe) opinions of the NRA and SF and Prop H
http://www.ambackforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=54171

[Dean Speir]

.

.

So Dean,

Let's recap.

1. You came here.

2. Crapped on the NRA.

3. Had evidence presented to show that you were blowing smoke.

4. Then a guy (whose history you probably aren't aware of) who due to his history has some firsthand knowledge of what is going on with NRA expenditures in California gives you more information about what NRA in California has done.

5. Now you continue to call out long time posters here for unbacked up assertions with not a shred of a backed up assertion of your own.

You're a pretty poor troublemaker. The only thing you have is a politically questionable diatribe about NRA behavior - not in California. I referred to the issues you're talking about but either those got fixed by the members or you're just a sore loser whose political desires weren't adopted. Actually, Gene, a more honest "recap" would reveal that I "came here" and asked two questions, the operative one being "Why does anyone think NRA declined to credit any of the other groups which supported this appeal?" Do you consider that "crapping on the NRA?"

There were a number of assertions posted by Members here, and the sole "evidence presented" was a cut 'n' paste from the PDF of the decision which failed to list SAF as one of the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, I went right to the highest source possible, Alan Gottlieb, who told me what SAF had kicked in, and discussed other aspects of not only the San Francisco case, but New Orleans, etc. All of which supported my position that NRA doesn't play well with others when it comes to sharing the spotlight.

As for your accusation about "not a shred of a backed up assertion of your own," that's unsupportable, so why are you flinging that in my direction?

Thank for you for the "You're a pretty poor troublemaker" part. Good thing, as that was never my intention.

Whatever you feel is "politically questionable" about what you characterize as a "diatribe," I'm pleased that you and others here feel that you're getting your money's worth out of a "dramatically effective" NRA there in California… for every Mike Haas, it seems, though, that there's also a Russ Howard.

Now, what sort of "sore loser whose political desires weren't adopted" are you envisioning? I wasn't in Cincinnati but I know what side I would have taken. I was, however, in Philadelphia ten years ago when Marion Hammer shut the microphones off and ended the annual Members' meeting before noon, because she, the Staff and vendors didn't want to allow Neal Knox, Joe Tartaro and others an opportunity to speak.

Now I remember you! You're that blowhard jerk off who used to rant on people on rec.guns. You sound like one of those uninformed name-callers I might have taken to school in rec.guns, but as your Moderator has noted, that's getting off-topic.

…requiring a zip code for registration would be silly on so many levels. I know… it was a factitious response to Bill Wiese's comment in respect to out-of-staters.

Now I've made full-disclosure from the start about my "agenda," and despite that, some here are still trying to figure it out, speculating that I'm a GOA plant or a Brady bunch troll.

I got pretty much what I needed to know… NRA-Cal is doing a good job for California Members, and few of you posting here appear to be too concerned with what might be happening outside of your own backyards.

And no, I had no idea of who "Blackwater Ops" was, or for that matter, is… however, I'm willing to accept that he's dialed-in, and my questioning him was not an measure of disrespect. Where I ply my vocation and advocations, I'm more used to dealing with people who use their real names.

[hoffmang]

On the other hand, I went right to the highest source possible, Alan Gottlieb, who told me what SAF had kicked in, and discussed other aspects of not only the San Francisco case, but New Orleans, etc. All of which supported my position that NRA doesn't play well with others when it comes to sharing the spotlight.


Here is a place I can completely agree with you. SAF has been very active and as far as I can tell a full partner with NRA in New Orleans and also in Texas (which has sadly been under the radar and may very well be an SAF only adventure.)

-Gene

[M. Sage]

I got pretty much what I needed to know… NRA-Cal is doing a good job for California Members, and few of you posting here appear to be too concerned with what might be happening outside of your own backyards.

Hah. Hahaha. Wow. You ask anybody on Calguns what's happening at the state or federal level, gun control-wise, and you're really likely to get a well-informed answer. That's not something I would try with the majority of gun enthusiasts in other states. We're not just sitting here watching what's going on in California, we're actually watching what's going on across the nation. The sad part is, it's easy to do since most of the crap they try at a federal level originated here.

You're right on one point, though. Cal NRA is doing a wonderful job. They show us time and again that they're our biggest ally in CA. Often, it looks like they're our only ally.