What's up with the GOC?

[Kid Stanislaus]

Is Gun Owners of California an effective organization or am I just throwing my money into a pit? What do they do, and how good are they at doing it?

[bwiese]

GOC is a private business that takes money in and calls it 'membership', though you can't vote on anything.

I cannot recall any effective legislation driven by GOC that was either achievable, workable, or that passed. Sam got traction in one district in one election and helped a Republican legislator win a primary against another opponent. Other than that, he can pretty much only help elect a Republican legislator already in a safe set.

GOC leader Sam Paredes' drama last year with a Fish & Game commissioner and some Republican party politics caused enough drama that the Governor reversed course (we had vetoes intte bag) and he approved both the AB821 lead ammo ban (instead of letting regulatory efforts solve a vastly smaller problem) and the AB1471 microstamping law as 'payback' for the drama.

Sam Paredes drafts bills that sometimes can have disastrous consequences. He created AB2218 several years ago (carried by Jay LaSeur) in an attempt to mitigate the CA AW ban: what he ended up doing (against advice on how to create the bill) was creating a bill that made minor improvements but ended up creating 'constructive possession'. If AB2218 had passed, some parts of the OLL revolution would have been impacted.

There have been quite a few reports of GOC folks diverting/rerouting folks at gunshows away from NRA membership lines into GOC signup booths.

Right now, the NRA is the only effective general gun organization in CA.

And the Calguns Foundation is a specifically-focused young, small organization that targets & supports specific 'interesting' legal cases. Its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is on the horizon.

[RP1911]

We just need to create a CalGuns PAC.

[bwiese]

We just need to create a CalGuns PAC.

Haha. I think Calguns does well enough where it is, with its body of committed politically-active gunnies, combined with the CGF and the Coalitioin fighting bad cases.

NRA has some great staff in Sacramento that can get a ton of work done if those 'alternative' gun groups there wouldn't vaingloriously sabotage their efforts just to get income.

Microstamping & lead ammo bills would not have been passed if GOC's Sam Paredes had kept his mouth shut.

SB15 'safe handgun' Roster/drop testing BS would not have passed if there had been a unified voice from other gun groups alongside NRA opposing it.

[tango-52]

Fun to think about...

It would be the only California based, membership driven Gun rights related PAC that I am aware of.

CRPA finally closed theirs after years of neglect.

OCCCWS is an Orange County based PAC focused on the CCW issue.

http://www.occcws.com/

[CoinStar]

GOC is a private business that takes money in and calls it 'membership', though you can't vote on anything.

{...}

And the Calguns Foundation is a specifically-focused young, small organization that targets & supports specific 'interesting' legal cases. Its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is on the horizon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but donors can't vote on anything --including the BoD-- within the CGF either. Nor are the books completely open to them to see where exactly the money is used. So in those aspects at least, the difference between the two is merely semantics ("donors" vs. "members") but with the same overall outcome.

[CoinStar]

There have been quite a few reports of GOC folks diverting/rerouting folks at gunshows away from NRA membership lines into GOC signup booths.

Substantiation? ...or is this just more rumor?

[bwiese]

Substantiation? ...or is this just more rumor?

From witnesses.

[CoinStar]

From witnesses.

Ah.

So it lacks any substantiation then... that is, unless you're willing to lend credence to "witnesses" attesting to sightings of Bigfoot flying a UFO with Nessie riding shotgun.

[bwiese]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but donors can't vote on anything --including the BoD-- within the CGF either. Nor are the books completely open to them to see where exactly the money is used. So in those aspects at least, the difference between the two is merely semantics ("donors" vs. "members") but with the same overall outcome.

Well, that's why we call them donors and not members.

And the situation is hugely different.

(1) CGF isn't run for benefit of any board member.
(2) CGF Board members have not take any remuneration/salary/fees, etc.
(3) CGF Board members have given of their own nontrivial ca$h, time, and resources.
(4) CGF Board members have footed basic operational expenses (phone costs, business/mailing presence, etc.)
(5) CGF future overhead expenses will largely be for accounting, some basic insurance matters, etc.
(5) We do realize we need to figure out some measure of openness - but discussing new court
cases is unwise + deleterious to resolving 'em - makes it brighter spot on the radar (bigger target
for DA to attack). Best will be probably to say we're working on cases involving Subjects A, B and
F and then post when results (favorable or otherwise) are obtained. We expect to have some
favorable news on a couple of cases shortly including a pleasantly big one that likely triggering
some future side effects, I wish I could say more now. Think BrightSpot but at a higher severity level.

(6) CGF has never screwed anything up by doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

[CoinStar]

And the situation is hugely different.

But it was you who made the comparison and without being prompted to do so.

I'm not actually questioning CGF and/or its tactics. You have my support.

[bwiese]

But it was you who made the comparison and without being prompted to do so.

Um, the thread orig subject, direction and context led me to believe that.

I'm not actually questioning CGF and/or its tactics. You have my support.

Well, thank you. We do try.

[hoffmang]

Nor are the books completely open to them to see where exactly the money is used.

And that has almost everything to do with the fact that CGF is 100% volunteer at this time. If we could have done more than searched for (and found!) a volunteer CPA, we'd have financials for public consumption. As a 501(c)(3) you'll be able to access our tax returns, but we expect to release financial data only redacted for certain strategic reasons around actual cases.

I can tell you that the current expenditures are north of 95% legal defense. Space, time, even much of the filings and other things have been donated to date.

Now let's compare and contrast. How many CGF board members responded to your questions about CGF as compared to say CRPA?

-Gene

[CoinStar]

Now let's compare and contrast. How many CGF board members responded to your questions about CGF as compared to say CRPA?

Seeing that the CGF is an extension of Calguns.net, should I expect anything different? If this was a webforum hosted by CRPA.org, I would expect the appropriate folks to be there instead.

Besides that, I didn't ask any questions regarding CRPA. Even further, I stated that I didn't care to know where every penny of funds donated to CGF were being spent. The original poster asked a question about GOC --not CGF-- and yet a comparison was created from nothing. Seeing that the position of the CGF is that GOC is worthless, it's strikes me as rather odd that those who are part of the board of the CGF would make an unsolicited comparison to something already deemed to have no value.

But that's beside the point since I'm just pointing out the double standard that's being applied. It is a fact that donors to the CGF can't vote nor see where their money goes --both of which comprise the normal slate of criticisms aimed at GOC/CRPA or whoever else is the target du jour.

I don't know how to make this point any clearer.

[GuyW]

The fact that CGF has operated essentially as a project-driven organization (in my understanding) is hugely different from any other gun.org that I am aware of....donors can support (or not) the current project(s)...

.