[bwiese]

It appears that the CAFR's Kathy Lynch is circulating a petition(s) concerning ammo registration, Cow Palace gunshow, etc. at local FFLs.

What's interesting is that these petition packets seem to be distributed (at least in part) by bail bondsmen to local FFLs.

This petition stuff is done every 2 years by Kathy regarding whatever the hot gun issue of the day is, but:

• it won't carry any weight/change any outcome, or "cause pain" to legislators during various key time periods;

• the primary goal is your name/address being gathered for sale as part of a mailing list;

[If this were a real call to activism, surely she'd gather phone & email addresses?]

The fact that a co-represented entity (a bail bonds firm) is playing paperboy for distributing gun-related items to gunshops should show you how entangled Kathy is with non-gun interests, and how "wires can get crossed" in political horsetrading games.

Just tell The Queen of the Handgun Roster a big fat "No". Perhaps even sign the Petition with the name of your favorite non-Rostered handgun you'd like to buy (if it weren't for her law) instead of your name/address

Remember, the Roster got us not only the whole drop-test/Rostering crap, but set up "Alison's Law", a whole body of law to which things can easily be "glued in" everytime a legislator sneezes:

• mag disconnect requirement;
• loaded chamber indicator ("LCI") requirement;
• microstamping;
• trivial cosmetic differences still require separate Rostering/payment;

Do you want someone who helped bring forth an antigunner's law to have your name & address, for profit?

I'd think not.

[nicki]

Isn't it illegal to use info on those forms for anything other than politics?

Nicki

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by nicki

Isn't it illegal to use info on those forms for anything other than politics?

Nicki

Unsure; that restriction may only apply to an actual ballot petition - as opposed to a simple "We don't like this" petition.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

So the petition containing gun stuff belongs to CAFR but Kathy Lynch is promoting/distributing it for them?
This is the same Kathy Lynch that works for the CRPA?

Vick

[domokun]

Originally Posted by Can'thavenuthingood

So the petition containing gun stuff belongs to CAFR but Kathy Lynch is promoting/distributing it for them?
This is the same Kathy Lynch that works for the CRPA?

Vick

YES!

[bwiese]

Close but not quite...

Kathy Lynch indeed runs CAFR.

She shared office space & more with the retiring CRPA lobbyist.

[Riodog]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Close but not quite...

Kathy Lynch indeed runs CAFR.

She shared office space & more with the retiring CRPA lobbyist.

LOL, that's a hoot, BW. Nice way of saying it wasn't her wisdom she was sharing. This thread is worthless without pics. LOL
Rio

[Experimentalist]

Originally Posted by bwiese

the retiring CRPA lobbyist.

This is welcome news.

[Experimentalist]

Okay, I give up.

Perhaps my Google-fu is weak. What does the acronym "CAFR" stand for?

[tincan715]

Originally Posted by Experimentalist

Okay, I give up.

Perhaps my Google-fu is weak. What does the acronym "CAFR" stand for?

It's the California Association of Firearms Retailers.

[yellowfin]

How the heck does she figure she's welcome with anyone?

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by yellowfin

How the heck does she figure she's welcome with anyone?

She doesn't care, and doesn't prob even understand why her name is mud in the real gunrights community.

Update: feedback reached me that the bail bondsman (runs Bad Boys Bail Bonds in San Jose), when queried about the drama surrounding Kathy, said I "...was full of sh**."

Woderwhen Kathy's gonna need use someone from Hallmark Cards (another lobbying client of hers) to send her next gun-related petition.

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by bwiese

This petition stuff is done every 2 years by Kathy regarding whatever the hot gun issue of the day is, but:

• it won't carry any weight/change any outcome, or "cause pain" to legislators during various key time periods;

• the primary goal is your name/address being gathered for sale as part of a mailing list;

So, Is there any value to putting together a petition that is not affiliated with CAFR, perhaps using one of the online petition sites like PetitionOnline

[Theseus]

I think we have to be prepared for the fact that they will consider our petition not inline with their " responsible public advocacy" policy.

It should be easy enough to setup our own. . . But I think part of the issue, and correct me if I am wrong, but if Calguns actually participates in lobbying operations they may not qualify for non-profit status? Is petition collection considered lobbying?

Originally Posted by obeygiant

So, Is there any value to putting together a petition that is not affiliated with CAFR, perhaps using one of the online petition sites like PetitionOnline

[Hopi]

Originally Posted by Theseus

I think we have to be prepared for the fact that they will consider our petition not inline with their " responsible public advocacy" policy.

It should be easy enough to setup our own. . . But I think part of the issue, and correct me if I am wrong, but if Calguns actually participates in lobbying operations they may not qualify for non-profit status? Is petition collection considered lobbying?

The CGF and Calguns.net are two distinct and separate entities. You're right about CGF and the inability to lobby, however, the community here at Calguns.net could certainly get the petition ball rolling.....

[motorhead]

petitions not addressing specific bills or initiatives are a complete waste of time.

PETITION:
gun laws are bad, mkay?
don't pass gun laws.

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by motorhead

petitions not addressing specific bills or initiatives are a complete waste of time.

PETITION:
gun laws are bad, mkay?
don't pass gun laws.

Agreed, but how about one that specifically addresses AB962 and then forwarded to the Senate?

[motorhead]

even there the senators are more likely (if at all) to respond to local pressure from their constituants that from organized effort on a statewide level. let's face it, they really don't care if they appear anti-gun.
my bad however in this case. they are addressing this bill specifically. i misunderstood. i've been reading on this all morning and am getting a little crosseyed.

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by motorhead

even there the senators are more likely (if at all) to respond to local pressure from their constituants that from organized effort on a statewide level. let's face it, they really don't care if they appear anti-gun.
my bad however in this case. they are addressing this bill specifically. i misunderstood. i've been reading on this all morning and am getting a little crosseyed.

You're probably right but we could include name,zip code and CA Senator for each person signing so that they can see that their actual constituents are in opposition to the bill. I would see it more of a mass notification of opposition rather than just telling them that we think they are "anti-gun"

[N6ATF]

[M. Sage]

Might be a good idea to, as customers, explain the situation politely to the FFLs in question and request that they remove said petitions.

[trashman]

Thanks for the heads-up Bill. We gotta find Kathy another gig...

--Neill

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by trashman

Thanks for the heads-up Bill. We gotta find Kathy another gig...

--Neill

CAFR itself could be a useful organization, or slightly changed to get to that point, if it weren't compromised by its legislative liaison.

We don't need circular firing squads.

As for petitions, online or otherwise... why distill/concentrate the work? That becomes "only one item". Direct calls, faxes, emails and letters/postcards from MANY, *separate* individuals is what is bothersome to legislators and is what can monkeywrench their office.

One petition = only one piece of paper to throw away, wastes 5 sec of a legislator or legislative aide's time.

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by bwiese

CAFR itself could be a useful organization, or slightly changed to get to that point, if it weren't compromised by its legislative liaison.

We don't need circular firing squads.

As for petitions, online or otherwise... why distill/concentrate the work? That becomes "only one item". Direct calls, faxes, emails and letters/postcards from MANY, *separate* individuals is what is bothersome to legislators and is what can monkeywrench their office.

One petition = only one piece of paper to throw away, wastes 5 sec of a legislator or legislative aide's time.

Setting the issue of the organizer/parties involved aside for a moment, if they indeed have 10,000 signatures it still might be worth a shot at sending it along as it would surely gather some sort of attention not to mention that it would at the very least give a voice to those that are either unaware or not inclined to directly contact the Senators.

I agree that the hand written letters,personal faxes and phone calls are the preferred method of communication. I think that the idea of a petition online or otherwise should be to augment those existing efforts rather than to replace them.

[Theseus]

No organized group effort will ever match the same number acting in an unorganized manner.

The effort I am taking in creating this petition is to focus more on the individuals that might not know about AB-962, or perhaps that might not take the initiative to write, call or fax.

How many people that go to Turners or Wal-Mart that don't buy ammunition might be on our side if we packaged it right?

Imagine that you are in line preparing to buy a book when you are asked for your address, ID, fingerprint and signature because you bought a particular book that the government says incites people to riot and therefore they would like to know who you are just in case someone incites a riot in your area.

[WokMaster1]

I absolutely disagree with Bill on this. Everyone should sign up for this petition. If not Kathy will NEVER get the message.














Just put her address & Other Lynch on it,

[7x57]

Originally Posted by bwiese

CAFR itself could be a useful organization, or slightly changed to get to that point, if it weren't compromised by its legislative liaison.

Hmm. Could it? My impression is that half CAFR's problem is that it is short-sighted enough to like profiting from gun control laws even though it's more or less eating the seed corn, if the gun control happens to ban internet sales or otherwise reduce competition for local shops.

Even nationally the situation seems to always have been the opposite of the Brady Bunch's claim. Our manufacturers have often defected for short-term gain, and it is us who tries very hard to get them back in line.

I imagine there is a reason the Bradys love to talk about "the gun lobby" but never mention it when we get in an uproar about a company defecting. If they admitted that they'd have to admit that the Gun Lobby is gun owners, not "evil big business."

7x57

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by 7x57

Hmm. Could it? My impression is that half CAFR's problem is that it is short-sighted enough to like profiting from gun control laws even though it's more or less eating the seed corn, if the gun control happens to ban internet sales or otherwise reduce competition for local shops.

You have a partial point but CAFRs leadership is not the real problem, Kathy is. I think we can fix the former, not the latter.

I don't think they really understand they're being ill-served or some of the complex background. Of course, Kathy is a 'player' so she can create lotsa flair and nicely-letterheaded stationery to look 'useful' and has a lotta Sacto scuttlebutt. She looks like she has credibility when it's just a veneer.

Staff changes in that area can fix things and Kathy can go back and concentrate on Hallmark Cards and her bail bondsmen.

I note that the petitions running around Bay Area gunshops weren't distributed by gunnies or anyone with 'gun credibility' - she was using a guy (owner?) of Bad Boys Bail Bonds to drop 'em off. Talk about mixed msgs!

[7x57]

Originally Posted by bwiese

You have a partial point but CAFRs leadership is not the real problem, Kathy is. I think we can fix the former, not the latter.

Well, does CAFR have any interaction with the California gun rights community? At this point we supposedly have Cal NRA, CRPA, Calguns, and some good gun law lawyers at least on the same page and talking together. At what point do we have someone on our side whose opinion carries weight with the leadership?

My secondhand impression is that quite a lot of bad CA law can be blamed not on the raging anti-gunners in Sacramento but by neglect, fragmentation, and incompetence in our ranks. It appears that CAFR is a significant remaining piece of the puzzle that is being put back together, if we have any levers and handles that affect them.

7x57