NRA Setting the record straight re: AB711

[H Paul Payne]

Originally Posted by Tincon

For one thing right now all you have is a lot of rumor and possible BS. IF this is true, then how the CRPA responds is certainly something worthy of scrutiny. Right now though, all we have is some chatter about what an affiliate group the CRPA has no control over MIGHT have done. Does that somehow negate all the value you apparently perceived in the CRPA when you decided to become a member?

I agree with Tincon that we need to see how the CRPA responds and learn from that.

I know that they know about it, because I personally informed the CRPA President about and he thanked me and said that he would "get back to me shortly." I have faith that they will do the right thing, whatever that might be.

Remember, just because someone who is affiliated with CRPA (or anyone else) does something undesirable, doesn't indict the CRPA. They are separate organizations.

For example: Hypothetically, If the CRPA were to do something we didn't like, does it mean that we would attack the NRA, since CRPA is affiliated with NRA? I didn't think so.

For the record: I am NOT defending the CRPA, because every time I do, it bites me in the butt. However, I am defending common sense and doing the right thing. Blaming the wrong people, or group, makes no sense to me.

Paul

[Meplat]

Originally Posted by powder2burn

Oldest trick in the book, DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Useful idiots are helping the enemy. A pox on their house.

Some ARE the enemy.

[russ0861]

Was it a public meeting? If so, is there a record of what was said? Minutes from the meeting? Audio? anything? And if it was not a public meeting to discuss policy, why wasn't it public?

Need more evidence. I remember some years back (5 or more) there was a "sportsman" group(s) that had a board made up of people from anti 2A groups and almost zero real members. They testified before some committee in DC about representing sportsman and compromise and other BS. Might have been when the 1994 AWB was expiring. Anyone remember that?

I would say false flag. The antis know they have a lock as far as the votes go, but if they can make it look like there are "reasonable" people who are willing to "compromise for public safety," it goes over easier, especially if we are all pissing in each others Wheaties.

Wait until we have solid facts. There has to be some kind of record of the meeting.

[Meplat]

Originally Posted by H Paul Payne

I'm not sure that blaming the CRPA is the most appropriate response to this situation.

Paul

And I'm not sure it isn't.

[Meplat]

Originally Posted by FastFinger

Earlier this year Wayne LaPierre, CEO and vice president of the NRA, attended and spoke to a standing-room-only crowd of 600 at the annual NWTF Convention and Sport Show.

Should we not renew membership in NRA also?

Apples and oranges.

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by 97F1504RAD

So they make an alliance with a few groups who essentially just threw us all under the bus, but it's not their fault? Hmm interesting theory, then maybe what the CRPA should do at this point is to break all associations with all those groups and then when that happens I will reconsider. Or prove that it is all false.

They are affiliated not conjoined, there is nothing that indicates CRPA knew of this so blaming them is premature.

Now that it is public, how they respond is the metric we should use.
This broke today, give them a day or two to respond before condemning.

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by VaderSpade

Ya, I just posted that a few post up???

Link?

[VaderSpade]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Calif...06175816096853

[Meplat]

Originally Posted by russ0861

Was it a public meeting? If so, is there a record of what was said? Minutes from the meeting? Audio? anything? And if it was not a public meeting to discuss policy, why wasn't it public?

Need more evidence. I remember some years back (5 or more) there was a "sportsman" group(s) that had a board made up of people from anti 2A groups and almost zero real members. They testified before some committee in DC about representing sportsman and compromise and other BS. Might have been when the 1994 AWB was expiring. Anyone remember that?

I would say false flag. The antis know they have a lock as far as the votes go, but if they can make it look like there are "reasonable" people who are willing to "compromise for public safety," it goes over easier, especially if we are all pissing in each others Wheaties.

Wait until we have solid facts. There has to be some kind of record of the meeting.

You don't think government officials and their associates obey the laws do you?

[monk]

Originally Posted by VaderSpade

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Calif...06175816096853

Looks like they blocked anyone without an account; that link takes me to a login page.

[pennys dad]

CDA says:

I was at the meeting on Wednesday, August 28th with DFW staff and some other conservation groups.

my response "So you are admitting that there was a secret meeting"

The meeting was not held to discuss AB 711 but at the beginning of the meeting there was some discussion of the Director's letter.

my response "You admit there was discussion on AB-711"

It is totally false that CDA or any of the other conservation groups who participated in the meeting came out in support of AB 711, or voiced support of AB 711, or the amendments in the Director's letter.

my response "You admit there where amendments discussed regarding AB-711 and none of the groups that attended opposed the amendments"

So the truth as you have stated is:

There was a secret meeting on the 28th attended by CDA (YOU) and others and you discussed amendments to AB-711 and did not oppose the amendments. You know, not standing in the way makes you just as culpable as saying yes.

[H Paul Payne]

This is what I have learned in the last few hours

** My assistant, Dave, spoke with CDA President Jerry Springer a few hours ago. Then, shortly after that, both Dave and I spoke with him. The information below, is a result of that discussion.

Mr. Springer stated that CDA had sent a letter of opposition to the CA State Senate on June 20, 2013. He sent Dave a copy of the letter, which I now have a pdf copy of.

He further stated that on August 25, 2013 he personally, and representing CDA, contacted the legislature in opposition to all the bills contained in the alert from CRPA.

On August 28, 2013 he attended the meeting in question. But Mr. Springer states that the DFW meeting was for the purpose of determining which organizations would receive grants from the DFW and the subject of AB711 was discussed. According to Mr. Springer, the discussion regarding AB711 was mostly about the DFW Director’s letter of support and the amendments the Director was seeking.

When I mentioned that when a group agrees to support amendments to a bill, they are thought to be in support if/when the amendments are accepted, he stated, “CDA does not support 711.”

He was VERY careful with his wording and when I mentioned his careful phrasing, he restated his points. He admitted that he is getting a lot of pressure from people on the Internet and elsewhere.

Although Mr. Springer's story is somewhat different than stories from other people we have spoken with he wants people to believe that he personally, and as the CDA President, are opposed to AB711.

I am going to ask him to work with the NRA and CRPA to write another letter to the legislature and the Governor reiterating CDA's continued opposition to AB711.

EDIT: PLEASE CLICK HERE TO VIEW MR. SPRINGER'S RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE (POST #71)


** I have also learned the following information regarding meetings with the DFW:

On April 17 and 18, NRA’s Ed Worley requested (in writing) to be included “Wildlife Resources Committee” meetings as well as other DFW meetings.

On August 7, NRA’s Ed Worley asked (in writing) when the next meeting was going to be held. The reply was, “Not sure yet.”

After overhearing rumors about an upcoming meeting involving members of the “hunting community,” CRPA’s Tom Pedersen asked DFW officials (in writing) on August 21st, for confirmation of the meeting and for he and Ed Worley to be allowed to attending if/when such a meeting was to occur. Note: Tom and Ed had no solid knowledge if/when a meeting was going to be held, but they did specifically inquire about it. No answer was received from the DFW.

** I will not attempt to draw any solid conclusions from any of these facts presented herein.

However, If the DFW would have included Ed Worley and Tom Pedersen in the meetings (as requested) I doubt any of this confusion would have occurred. They would have provided us with solid reports from the meetings and any discussion of supporting AB711 or amendments to it would have been decimated by them.

I also believe that if CDA does issue another letter to the Legislature and the Governor, it would probably help assure people of their continued opposition to AB711 as they stated on the phone with me and on their Facebook page after our conversation.

Paul

[russ0861]

Originally Posted by Meplat

You don't think government officials and their associates obey the laws do you?

No I don't, but if there is a record we should check it. Never underestimate the antis. Real easy for them to stir the s%^t pot and have us at each others throat. We get distracted, people lose interest because they are tired of the pissing match and stop calling, faxing, emailing, etc.

Keep your attention where it should be, the Leftist antis. We can get the collaborators after we win.

[MustangSteveGT]

Makes me wonder if any of our friendly special interest firearm groups urged the exclusion of rim fires to be taken off of SB 374? We may never know. With certain people such as the NRA not invited to these special meetings.

[Meplat]

Originally Posted by H Paul Payne

This is what I have learned in the last few hours



I also believe that if CDA does issue another letter to the Legislature and the Governor, it would probably help assure people of their continued opposition to AB711 as they stated on the phone with me and on their Facebook page after our conversation.

Paul

From posts I read on their FB page by their rank and file, it would seem CDA leadership will be entirely at odds with it's membership if it does not do something to extricate it's self from this cesspool. Holding a bribe.......er grant money auction where the first thing discussed is; "Will you support my politics?" is slimy, disgusting, and I'm fairly sure illegal

[Meplat]

Originally Posted by russ0861

No I don't, but if there is a record we should check it. Never underestimate the antis. Real easy for them to stir the s%^t pot and have us at each others throat. We get distracted, people lose interest because they are tired of the pissing match and stop calling, faxing, emailing, etc.

Keep your attention where it should be, the Leftist antis. We can get the collaborators after we win.

All true, but although I do not hunt as much as I once did I have an address book full of hunters that I am already trying to keep whipped up, and most are. This is just the thing to show them that you can’t just sit back and let your leadership do it all. I will hold back until I have better information so I do not inadvertently or unfairly imply anything.

[MustangSteveGT]

If* the allegations are true, the members of these organizations will have some decision making. Side with an organization that consorts with the enemy or send your money and support somewhere else. Their decision in that circumstance would also speak volumes about what side of the fence they themselves are on. To me personally; there has been too much compromise and its continuous compromise that has gotten us to where we are now to begin with. There is no "I support this under a couple conditions." It's either you support or oppose. To support under any conditions is still support.

[CrazyPhuD]

I am currently preparing an analysis/commentary of the bills that I intend to send to every member at the capitol. Unfortunately I can't destroy every bill, If I make it too long people won't read it. I had to prune some bills AB711 was one of them. However here is some of the information that I've already collected that you may be able to put to good use.

#1 issue a study released last year by authors from UC Santa Cruz(and likely one of the main groups pushing for this) states outright the existing targeted lead ban has shown ZERO effect in reducing lead exposure in condors.

Article.....

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/1...9-33cacbdba4bd

We compared blood lead levels in birds in 2006–2007 (preban) with levels in 2009–2010 (postban) and found no indication that blood lead levels had declined in 2009–2010 compared with 2006–2007 (Fig. 2A and Fig. S5A), suggesting that, at least thus far, the regulations to help reduce lead exposure in condors have not been effective.

Why is this important? The existing regulations ban lead ammunition use in the areas that condors are most likely to encounter it(i.e. their traditional hunting ranges). Removal of hunting lead from this area would naturally expect to cause the greatest drop in lead exposure for condors(if it was hunting lead that caused it). Expanding the area where lead ammunition is used to include areas that condors are not expected to be present would expect to have a significantly lower improvement in lead exposure than the current targeted areas since they are unlikely to be exposed to lead there.

Since the current regulations show ZERO improvement and the new regulations are expected to show less improvement than the current ones have already show, it is safe to say that any new regulation will show ZERO improvement.

[bwiese]

Thank you Paul for digging down into the mire.

And to those blaming CRPA - really, the CRPA lobbyist - *stop it*. Tom Pedersen is the one guy that WOULD
get this done right - and as we see, he (nor NRA) were in the room.

It's always sad the drama we get from "the duck hunters" in relation to understanding outcomes/risks.

I'm also sad if Gaines & Watters had anything to do with this screwup.

[Dave C]

This is precisely the reason that I joined NRA this year for the first time after being an avid hunter and outdoorsman for nearly 40 years. They are the ONLY organization I can trust to stand up for our rights and fight bills and laws that not only infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights but also make absolutely no scientific or logical sense.
I learned long ago that CDA and CWA were all about money and nothing about preserving heritage, deer, waterfowl, or habitat. They will never receive a dime from me. One needs only to look at the first word in those organizations names to see the problem.

[Dutch3]

Originally Posted by H Paul Payne

But Mr. Springer states that the DFW meeting was for the purpose of determining which organizations would receive grants from the DFW and the subject of AB711 was discussed. According to Mr. Springer, the discussion regarding AB711 was mostly about the DFW Director’s letter of support and the amendments the Director was seeking.

Reading between the lines, it almost sounds like the meeting was about not opposing the bill in order to receive a grant.

Of course, I am prone to being thick-headed so maybe I am seeing something that isn't there.

[XenosAce]

Wow if the allegations are true I am a very sad person. I am not a hunter but this is still unacceptable to me as a gun owner.

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by Dutch3

Reading between the lines, it almost sounds like the meeting was about not opposing the bill in order to receive a grant.

that's what I saw, too

[97F1504RAD]

Originally Posted by Dutch3

Reading between the lines, it almost sounds like the meeting was about not opposing the bill in order to receive a grant.

Of course, I am prone to being thick-headed so maybe I am seeing something that isn't there.

Yep that's how I see it as well.

[chris]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

I've heard some chatter about this as well.
I'm not as politic as Paul is, what a statement...

What I've heard is that this was guided for the most part by a guy named Bill Gaines, the same guy who sold us out on the bill about hunting bear with dogs.
I'm sensing a pattern here.

The names I'm hearing are NWTF National Wild Turkey Foundation, California Deer Association, Elk Foundation and CWA California Waterfowl Assoc.

We e been sold out for nothing, concessions that are meaningless or worse should someone else be appointed to the CA DFW Directorship.
They handed off the ability to declare ammo illegal and the vaporware promise the 'hunting will always be legal'.
No mention of being functionally regulated out of existence.

They need to repudiate their agreement and get back on board opposing AB711 or the need to get the Zumbo treatment on steroids!

i will never support any of these groups if this is true. as a hunter and if this is true i will never ever support them in any way what so ever.

Originally Posted by bwiese

Thank you Paul for digging down into the mire.

And to those blaming CRPA - really, the CRPA lobbyist - *stop it*. Tom Pedersen is the one guy that WOULD
get this done right - and as we see, he (nor NRA) were in the room.

It's always sad the drama we get from "the duck hunters" in relation to understanding outcomes/risks.

I'm also sad if Gaines & Watters had anything to do with this screwup.

as someone who duck hunts and owns just about every rifle they want to ban in this state i find it stupid that duck hunters will compromise our guns that we use for fun and training.
i'am not surprised to see it either. i have zero comtempt for these types of gun owners and hunters. correct me if i'am wrong didn't SASS in this state sell us out on the AW ban(s) in the past?


hunters in general in this state better knock off the crap that they will not come after my guns if i compromise to keep my hunting rifle or duck hunting shotgun. this attitude MUST stop now.

[wjc]

I'm an NWTF member.

Looks like I'll be calling Joe Pecsi (California Chapter President) on Tuesday. His email is joe@jlpecsi.com.

I'll fire off an email to him right now asking for clarification.

[chris]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

I am currently preparing an analysis/commentary of the bills that I intend to send to every member at the capitol. Unfortunately I can't destroy every bill, If I make it too long people won't read it. I had to prune some bills AB711 was one of them. However here is some of the information that I've already collected that you may be able to put to good use.

#1 issue a study released last year by authors from UC Santa Cruz(and likely one of the main groups pushing for this) states outright the existing targeted lead ban has shown ZERO effect in reducing lead exposure in condors.

Article.....

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/1...9-33cacbdba4bd

Why is this important? The existing regulations ban lead ammunition use in the areas that condors are most likely to encounter it(i.e. their traditional hunting ranges). Removal of hunting lead from this area would naturally expect to cause the greatest drop in lead exposure for condors(if it was hunting lead that caused it). Expanding the area where lead ammunition is used to include areas that condors are not expected to be present would expect to have a significantly lower improvement in lead exposure than the current targeted areas since they are unlikely to be exposed to lead there.

Since the current regulations show ZERO improvement and the new regulations are expected to show less improvement than the current ones have already show, it is safe to say that any new regulation will show ZERO improvement.

i'm not one bit surprised that the lead levels have not changed at all. this only goes to show that their goal is to ban hunting in this state. too bad the chances of getting rid of the lead ammo ban are nil.

[FastFinger]

Originally Posted by chris

i'm not one bit surprised that the lead levels have not changed at all. this only goes to show that their goal is to ban hunting in this state. too bad the chances of getting rid of the lead ammo ban are nil.

Partially correct.

All this goes to show that their goal is to make gun ownership - that includes all guns, shotguns, rifles, BB guns, handguns, toy guns - illegal.

In case I wasn't clear... The antis want to eliminate the lawful private possession of all guns, except (of course) for authorized government employees.

Anything short of that is unacceptable to the statists who aim to control us (for our own good, of course).

BUT... They aren't there yet, and we can still stop them. To do that we must get more California gun owners to wake up and join us. Us sitting behind our keyboards is not going to do the trick. Each one of us must do more - a lot more.

If you haven't joined NRA and at least one of the other 2A groups - you're not doing enough. Join, and get active.

A few weeks ago I was at a meeting of one of the group's leadership. Not to be disrespectful, but looking around the room the faces I saw were not representative of California today and its future. Most of us had a bit too much gray hair, it was very clear that if membership demographics do not change by the introduction of more young gun owners - we are doomed! If we don't get more women actively involved - we are doomed! If we don't enlist more minorities - we are doomed! Sorry if that sounds a bit politically incorrect, but changes in population demographics are what they are, and we either work to include growing segments, or we can kiss our guns goodbye!

This year's activity in Sacramento is very ominous. If these bills actually become law they will not satiate the statist true believers, it will embolden them. Sadly there are, and always will be, monsters among us. We can expect one of them to go off the rails and cause another Sandy Hook, when that happens the politicians will jump on the occasion to hammer more nails in the gun rights' coffin. To stop them then, you need to take action now. Don't just join - get involved.

If anyone you know shows the slightest interest in the shooting sports, get them out to the range. If you know a gun owner who isn't engaged - get them to join also.

This isn't a rehearsal, they aim to take away you ability to own and shoot guns. Fight back!

[H Paul Payne]

THIS IS THE MESSAGE FROM MR. SPRINGER, IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
=======================================

Paul

Just a correction to you post below. One of the purposes was to explain the status of a new grant program not to determine which organizations would receive grants.

purpose of determining which organizations would receive grants from the DFW

Jerry Springer
California Deer Association - President
California Deer - Editor

Jerry@WesternHunter.com
www.WesternHunter.com
P.O. Box 7708Stockton, CA 95267
Phone/Fax: (209) 951-5188

=================
=================

In the spirit of comradery and cooperation I offer this correction from Jerry Springer, President of the California Deer Association.

My sincere apology if I misunderstood this particular detail of the conversation with Mr. Springer. It was indeed unfortunate that both Dave and I thought we heard the same thing. Please accept this apology from both of us.

Paul

[pennys dad]

CDA needs to do the right thing!
Soon!

Originally Posted by H Paul Payne

THIS IS THE MESSAGE FROM MR. SPRINGER, IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
=======================================

Paul

Just a correction to you post below. One of the purposes was to explain the status of a new grant program not to determine which organizations would receive grants.

purpose of determining which organizations would receive grants from the DFW

Jerry Springer
California Deer Association - President
California Deer - Editor

Jerry@WesternHunter.com
www.WesternHunter.com
P.O. Box 7708Stockton, CA 95267
Phone/Fax: (209) 951-5188

=================
=================

In the spirit of comradery and cooperation I offer this correction from Jerry Springer, President of the California Deer Association.

My sincere apology if I misunderstood this particular detail of the conversation with Mr. Springer. It was indeed unfortunate that both Dave and I thought we heard the same thing. Please accept this apology from both of us.

Paul

[2nd Mass]

Originally Posted by penguin0123

Divide and conquer. Just you wait and see, the leadership of those groups will be offered high paying jobs somewhere.

Unfortunately this happens in major conflicts. People become collaborators to benefit their personal self interest. It happened in the revolutionary war, it happened in auschwitz and unfortunately it's happening here.

It's an old ploy to use for propaganda as well. Wait for the rhetoric "gun owners support SB 711" and they'll parade the names of those organizations as proof. Perhaps those angry with calguns and nra for not doing enough should refocus their anger to groups that have earned it instead.

[spectr17]

Bill Gaines was in house council and spokesman with CWA before he moved over to COHA. He spoke before DFW many times on issues that involved waterfowl hunting. He is a very polished speaker and seemed to be one our good guys.

[wjc]

I got a response back from Joe Pecsi (California Chapter President) of the NWTF.

Hi Mr. wjc:

You should know I conference called into the meeting and at no time did I
state that the NWTF supported the CDFW Director's amendment or the passage of AB 711. I was also told that Jerry Springer, representing CDA, had also supported the amendment and passage of AB 711, I never heard Jerry say that.


For the record: The National Wild Turkey Federation California State Chapter
has continued to oppose the passage of AB 711. We have been fighting this
legislation as well. We recently formed a partnership with the California
Pistol and Rifle Association, who will represent us at legislative hearings
and other such meetings as requested. Certainly the CRPA's record of
opposing AB 711 has been well established.

Thank you for your inquiry.


Respectfully,

Joe

Joe Pecsi
California State President
National Wild Turkey Federation
210 S. Second St.
Bishop, CA 93514

[97F1504RAD]

Seems Mr. Springer may have some explaining to do as to why he supports this horrible bill.

[SaltyDogUSMC]

Jerry Springer and Joe Pesci? Really?

[wjc]

Originally Posted by SaltyDogUSMC

Jerry Springer and Joe Pesci? Really?

Pecsi...not Pesci.

It's subtle...

[SaltyDogUSMC]

I wish it was the Joe Pesci from Goodfellas! He would clear this up quick!

[H Paul Payne]

Joe Pecsi from NWTF just called me and let me know in no uncertain terms that NWTF is still in strong opposition to AB711.

I have now spoken with both CDA and NWTF and both assure me that they are STILL OPPOSED to AB711!

Paul

[Dave C]

Then, what did transpire at the "meeting?" How is it that some seem to think there was some collusion and back-door deals taking place? I doubt people are making this stuff up. I'd love to hear the recordings or read the transcripts from this "meeting." After all, they should be public record.

[H Paul Payne]

I received the following email:
===================

Subject: AB 711


Need to talk with you or Paul about this when you get a chance. Thanks.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=816421


Mark Hennelly
Vice President, Legislative Affairs and Public Policy
California Waterfowl
(916) 648-1406 ext 105
mhennelly@calwaterfowl.org

1346 Blue Oaks Blvd.
Roseville, CA 95678
fax (916) 648-1665
Visit us on the web at www.calwaterfowl.org!



==========================

Dave and I just called Mr. Hennelly and he asked, "I would like you to clarify what happened at the meeting."

I responded, "As you know, I wasn't there. In fact, nobody from the NRA was permitted to attend that meeting."

As the discussion progressed, I asked Mr. Hennelly to send me CWA's letter of opposition to AB711 so that I could circulate it for him. He informed me that CWA is not in opposition to AB711 because he believes that "lead bans have saved over 1,000,000 birds since lead shot was banned federally."

I explained that lead shot and migratory birds is an entirely different issue than the hunting restrictions proposed in AB711.

We asked for "CWA to reconsider their position and join in solidarity with the other hunters and sportsmen in opposition to AB711." Unfortunately, Mr. Hennelly declined and said that CWA will continue to have a NEUTRAL POSITION on AB711.

I was asked no less than three times, by Mr. Hennelly, to explain the events the occurred during last week's meeting. Unfortunately, I wasn't there so I cannot do so. So, I am simply reporting on the discussion on the phone.

Paul