If you are a gun rights supporter . . .

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

What I see from the current NRA has led me to allow my membership to lapse, to reject MidwayUSA's offer to "Round Up," and to divert my limited funds other organizations. Organizations that don't support RFLs, that don't support bumpstock bans, that don't support suppressor bans, but DO support ground-breaking court cases such as Heller v DC from the beginning, not as coattail riders after the fact.

Would you please name the organization with a more impressive list of accomplishments / campaigns in California than this one by the NRA?

https://www.nraila.org/legal-legislation/state-legislation/california/2019/february-2019-litigation-report/

[DrjonesUSA]

Very illuminating, thank you for posting this...

[ja308]

I support Wayne and believe every word written by Marion Hammer !

This is a very clever ( not really) attempt to weaken the NRA so that we will not be effective 2020!

I say not really clever because I saw through it immediately ! Too bad a few others do not have the political knowledge to see an enemy at the gates !

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Glad you found it of interest, CJ5&G23.

What is also interesting is how people come on here and make accusations or raise questions and then disappear when a response is given that contradicts their narrative. Sometimes this happens because the people simply don't see the response. But, many are either deliberately spreading propaganda and cannot respond without risking being outed or are careless with the information they put out and don't want to admit they didn't know what they were talking about when confronted.

I don't know which camp 1911Ronin or Fyathyrio fall into. But people should pay attention to when people do that and take that into account when assessing the credibility of the accusations or questions raised.

[reverser]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't care if someone is buying $1,000,000 suits, sleeping with tranny hookers, and doing drugs with the money that I donate. I care about results and am not a babysitter. The NRA and CRPA get results and therefore get my money.

I definitely don't let the mainstream media or my neighbors affect my opinions.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I definitely don't let the mainstream media or my neighbors affect my opinions.

In this case, I don't believe Mr. Brady is referencing the media accusations regarding the NRA; particularly in relation to 1911RONIN. It's something more specific and related to CRPA's relationship with a local organization.

As an aside, why are Michel and associates trying to strong arm local gun groups into disbanding? OCGO and SDCGO? Instead of cooperation and coordination it sounds like the CRPA has chosen protectionism and threats.

What strong-arming are you referring to? This letter and correspondence to the SDCGO’s board: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...CGO-letter.pdf ?

I read that correspondence as the exact opposite of strong-arming and rather as an attempt to maintain an amicable relationship between groups.

That letter begins...

On January 18, 2019 SDCGO sent out an email bulletin that contained some information about the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) that is somewhat misleading. We are writing to make certain that you, as a leader and supporter of SDCGO’s worthwhile and commendable efforts, are not forming opinions or making decisions about CRPA based on inaccurate information.

When it comes to Fyathyrio...

I critically examine my life choices frequently, including any organization I may become associated with. Critical examination does not include swallowing sole source information from a biased party.

What I see from the current NRA has led me to allow my membership to lapse, to reject MidwayUSA's offer to "Round Up," and to divert my limited funds other organizations. Organizations that don't support RFLs, that don't support bumpstock bans, that don't support suppressor bans, but DO support ground-breaking court cases such as Heller v DC from the beginning, not as coattail riders after the fact.

Oh, and an organization that didn't replace questionable but perhaps effective law firm with one that donates to the most strident gun grabber to date!

I would hope, as a law firm and all, that you also critically examine evidence. Even evidence that may show your associations and organizations in a bad light that may require further inspection.

Would you please name the organization with a more impressive list of accomplishments / campaigns in California than this one by the NRA?

https://www.nraila.org/legal-legisla...gation-report/

Once again, however, I feel compelled to point out to Mr. Brady that presenting 'the other side' isn't proof of ignorance, FUD, propaganda spreading, or nefarious intent...

...What is also interesting is how people come on here and make accusations or raise questions and then disappear when a response is given that contradicts their narrative. Sometimes this happens because the people simply don't see the response. But, many are either deliberately spreading propaganda and cannot respond without risking being outed or are careless with the information they put out and don't want to admit they didn't know what they were talking about when confronted.

I don't know which camp 1911Ronin or Fyathyrio fall into. But people should pay attention to when people do that and take that into account when assessing the credibility of the accusations or questions raised.

Bear in mind that you have proven neither yourself 'right' nor the others 'wrong.' What you have done is present 'your side of the argument.' That's fine and, in an important respect, what is needed for people to make up their own minds. But, once again, be cautious in your method of presentation. Regardless of whether you perceive yourself or wished to be perceived as simply expressing a personal opinion, you ARE, by dint of your employment and how you present yourself on this site, a representative of (all) California gun owners specifically and a representative of the NRA through its official state association.

As a result - "Believe us or you will be considered..." - is likely not the best approach to the messaging you claim to be conveying. As someone who leans more toward supporting the NRA and taking what 'the other side' says with a tablespoon of salt, such does not sit well in the context of a 'defense.' This is especially true when referencing nearly 3 week old posts which raised questions based on the 'official' information available to those individuals and what you provided by way of rebuttal was, in many ways, one side of the argument which is, by design, somewhat self-serving, even if factually 'accurate,' though not, of necessity, representative of the 'complete story.'

Once again, regardless of the activity NRA has been involved in and the successes it has had (which is not necessarily all that is claimed), the NRA has failed, in some ways, to fully protect our rights and is continuing to do so. That does not mean it hasn't tried and it is not a criticism, just fact. In other ways, the NRA is influencing many outcomes in terms of being more pro-gun than the anti-gun pundits would like or appreciate. Again, simple fact, but not necessarily synonymous with 'victorious' (depending on how one chooses to define it).

As I said previously, if you want to express your personal opinions - Fine. I appreciate many of your contributions to the site. Just remember, the reality is, whether you wish it so or not, you ARE perceived as a representative of CRPA and, thus, the NRA on this site; in large portion, through your own actions. Likewise, presenting one side of the coin while making accusatory representation of the other side(s) and simultaneously claiming ignorance of the facts when pressed for 'answers,' but rather relying on official statements by CRPA/NRA, lends itself to a perception of 'allegiance' in your 'personal opinions' rather than an objective attempt to address the issues presented.

If you wish to educate and persuade, the objective is to make your case, not denigrate, label, create 'suggestive innuendo' or 'shame' those who ask questions based on the information they have available to them at the time they ask the questions. (As you suggest, true 'trolls' will out themselves at some point; but, it does not serve anyone's purposes to presume all who ask questions are being 'trolls' simply because you disagree with their question.) It can be tedious. It requires more patience than I can often summon. But, I should think it is, or should be, a tenet for a representative of CRPA/NRA; regardless of an understandable desire to contribute their personal opinions during a frustrating era.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Once again, however, I feel compelled to point out to Mr. Brady that presenting 'the other side' isn't proof of ignorance, FUD, propaganda spreading, or nefarious intent...

As a result - "Believe us or you will be considered...???" - is likely not the best approach to the messaging you claim to be conveying. As someone who leans more toward supporting the NRA and taking what 'the other side' says with a tablespoon of salt, such does not sit well in the context of a 'defense.' This is especially true when referencing nearly 3 week old posts which raised questions based on the 'official' information available to those individuals and what you provided by way of rebuttal was, in many ways, one side of the argument which is, by design, somewhat self-serving, even if factually 'accurate,' though not, of necessity, representative of the 'complete story.'

Likewise, presenting one side of the coin while making accusatory representation of the other side(s) and simultaneously claiming ignorance of the facts when pressed for 'answers,' but rather relying on official statements by CRPA/NRA, lends itself to a perception of 'allegiance' in your 'personal opinions' rather than an objective attempt to address the issues presented.

I ask that you please point out the specific statement I made that says if you "present the other side" or don't believe NRA or CRPA you will be considered ignorant or nefarious. I directed my statements to a very specific group of people, i.e., those who weigh in with accusations or statements and then fail to address information presented in response to those accusations or questions "from the other side" of them. I did so publicly and named names, inviting those people to set me straight. I also said the lack of their response could be attributable to their not having seen my response.

All my statement is intended to do is to alert people to take notice of that phenomenon. Because, while some who do this are innocent in their statements, others are not.

Apparently, you believe I should just remain silent and let people hear "from the other side" without my insight.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I ask that you please point out the specific statement I made that says if you "present the other side" or don't believe NRA or CRPA you will be considered ignorant or nefarious. I directed my statements to a very specific group of people, i.e., those who weigh in with accusations or statements and then fail to address information presented in response to those accusations or questions "from the other side" of them. I did so publicly and named names, inviting those people to set me straight. I also said the lack of their response could be attributable to their not having seen my response.

All my statement is intended to do is to alert people to take notice of that phenomenon. Because, while some who do this are innocent in their statements, others are not.

Apparently, you believe I should just remain silent and let me hear "from the other side" without my insight.

Your statement relied on a letter which begins with the declaration that people were forming opinions and making decisions based on "inaccurate information." What would be more objectively accurate would be to say that people are forming opinions and making decisions based on information presented from a certain point of view and CRPA would like to avail themselves of the opportunity to present their point of view.

Just as your opinion is based on statements by the NRA/CRPA, so their opinion was based on information they were presented by a more local gun group. By definition, neither of you "knows the FACTS". What you are relying on are the statements of others whom you know or choose to believe; i.e., you "are seeing what you want to see" or, more accurately, proceeding primarily on what information you have available and/or choose to put your faith in pending more/better information. This is particularly demonstrated when you claim you don't know the answers yourself and can't... "I don't know what is going on. You don't know what is going on. Nobody outside of a small group does."

Taken to the next logical step, it would then be entirely reasonable to ask how you know they don't know the facts if you admit that you don't know the facts?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that you don't personally want to believe the conclusions they've come to because you have built your beliefs on a different set of facts?

Yet... "I will continue to shame any gun rights supporter who owns firearms and is not a member of the NRA."

"Show me where I said" doesn't work with me...

...many are either deliberately spreading propaganda and cannot respond without risking being outed or are careless with the information they put out and don't want to admit they didn't know what they were talking about when confronted... I don't know which camp 1911Ronin or Fyathyrio fall into...

So... Those two are either deliberately spreading propaganda and cannot respond without being 'outed' or are careless and don't want to admit they are 'wrong' because you copy/pasted a couple of lists from CRPA/NRA?!?! (Remember, you presented three possibilities, expounding upon the two which inferred 'nefariousness' in some form; then, a short time later, offering a suggestion as to assessing 'credibility,' something which has nothing to do with 'not having seen it' to be able to reply.) What was it I said about denigrating, labeling, or creating 'suggestive innuendo' for those who ask questions based on the information they have available to them? Put another way - "Believe us or you will be considered..." what, a propagandist, wrong and ignorant, cowards ("then disappear when a response is given")... or something else?

The information you presented, as I said, is one side of the argument which is, by design, somewhat self-serving, even if factually 'accurate,' though not, of necessity, representative of the 'complete story.' How would you expect them to 'set you straight' based solely on your information? That is a tactic, not an argument.

Similar to the accusation you present at the end of your... statement... "Apparently, you believe I should just remain silent and let people hear "from the other side" without my insight." Again, that is a tactic, not an accurate representation (or even an attempt at one) of what I have said, repeatedly, and more representative of exactly what I have been cautioning you about.

As I have now said, several times, if you wish to educate and persuade, the objective is to make your case. Bear in mind, in presenting your side, you have proven neither yourself 'right' nor the others 'wrong.' Likewise, you have not proven that they are nefarious propagandists nor making accusations or asking questions based on completely inaccurate or false information. What you have done is present 'your side of the argument.' That's fine and, in an important respect, what is needed for people to make up their own minds.

But, once again, be cautious in your method of presentation. You continuously claim a specific intent, but cannot seem to resist... innuendo and inference in how you present it. Again, I sympathize with the frustrations which prompt such personal opinions. What I have said and continue to say is that it's not about your personal opinions so much as it is about those personal opinions creating a mindset which is influencing your public messaging; something also being reflected in the NRA's messaging and its efforts in dealing with these attacks.

If you cannot separate personal opinion from the message you claim to be attempting to convey, then it might be time to adjust how you present yourself on this site. In the case of this forum, it is indisputable that you have represented yourself as someone 'officially' associated with and as representing (in whatever capacity) CRPA/NRA. This is why many of your posts are 'official updates' regarding on-going cases.

As such, your personal opinions must be distinguished from 'official response' lest your personal opinions be taken (correctly or incorrectly) as representative of CRPA/NRA. You have been solely relying upon 'official' materials, from the beginning of this thread, as your 'evidence;' e.g., a statement from Marion Hammer, an NRA-ILA Legal Update, a letter from CRPA, an e-mail from Michel & Associates, and a couple of CRPA pamphlets. Good. But, it is, by its very nature, one side of the story/argument. It is also consistent with being a representative of those organizations.

Kestryll is a good example. His posts demonstrate the same frustrations you, I, and many others feel about this period of... disquiet. Even he has, occasionally, been less than 'objective' in his posts. Yet, by and large, he has attempted to keep his personal opinions separate from his presentations in defense of the NRA, in presenting 'his side' of the story, and in calling into question the motives, knowledge/understanding, and presentation of Calguns members.

It cannot be personally satisfying and, likely, adds a different level of frustration to do so. Yet, in his position, it is necessary lest his posts be inferred (correctly or incorrectly) as the 'official position' of Calguns. This is why, when he declares something like wanting to knock Wayne's and Chris' heads together and tell them to figure it out, he makes a point of clearly delineating it as a personal opinion. (I can't find that specific post at the moment, but it's out there.)

As I have said, I'm looking at BOTH sides of the argument/accusations. So are many others. We will make up our own minds as to validity and 'truth;' where being told that part of our assessment of credibility should include 'paying attention to when people do' this or that cuts both ways. Many have already made up their minds and they will not be swayed.

If the message is what you claim it to be, then the former is your audience, not the latter. Thus, whatever message you wish to convey should be directed toward those individuals and not be couched in or even predicated upon many of the premises you appear to hold personally.

[tenemae]

I wish the democrats would in-fight this much

[Federalist50]

I wish the democrats would in-fight this much

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

[warbird]

i am sure they do plenty of infighting which is why we might have a chance. But nobody likes bullies and we have a couple on this site pushing agendas that not many believe in. But each person has right to their own opinion based on the facts as they know them. calling them welfare and other names trying to shame them for resisting something they do not believe will never help us show a united front. i am impressed with "trapped in california" as i never knew he was so articulate. we are a country of varying opinions.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Amen, tenemae!

TrappedInCalifornia, if you wish to be engaged with seriously, you may want to pay attention to how concisely tenemae made his point for all to understand.

"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson

Bottom line, show a rebuttal to CRPA's letter from someone "in the know" or a list of accomplishments/actions similar to NRA's in California. Those are objective facts. I will wait. But I won't read a novel if you intend to respond.

Also, to be clear, 1911Ronin accused Michel & Associates of strong-arming local groups. I think I may have a tad more insight on that, which is why I posted the letter and related correspondence. All I did was ask him to confirm that the letter is what he was referring to when he accused our firm of strong arming SDCGO. That's called inviting a conversation. He has not accepted. And I'm the problem?

Figure it out man.

[SC1]

Instead of the NRA going ultra-conservative, I wish they would instead outreach to antigunners on the left, in the middle, and wherever else they can.

I honestly think if they get more people from all walks of life into shooting, then those people will make a difference in the voting booth.

The extreme political polarization is causing both "sides" to hunker down and go even farther apart.

[warbird]

SC1 you are right but we have one major obstacle that will not quit fighting with anyone who does not follow the dogma of the NRA. Until people like this are ignored you will always have two sides. you coax people into giving you a try not threaten and shame and call names. i have seen too many people alienated by the radical rants of certain parties. One thing i found out growing up and in the military was the biggest cowards hid behind words and not actions. we may have gone too far thanks to certain parties to heal the wounds they created in dividing us.

[hermosabeach]

I have emailed the NRA and not gotten a reply

Just as Reagan ended class 3 with the 1986 change, NRA is weak on AR rifles and rolled over on bump stocks.



It needs to be a focus on criminals with guns not reacting to new laws....


Reaction is losing the fight.


A slow erosion since the 1960s....