Been around for a while and ...

[HowardW56]

I have to be honest, I wish I could help. IMO, I'll donate when CG shows me they are dedicated to supporting ALL of our rights as citizens and not just their agenda or the will of the few in charge of the site that dislike certain things that may or may not harm said agenda. Bill W. and a many other informed CG'er's will understand my point of view... Sorry... I'm a benefactor NRA member. They don't play head games and deserve my money. James.

Well then continue donating to the NRA, they are advocating for our rights too...

I tire of their constant game of one-upmanshipthat the NRA plays with the SAF and other organizations. Don’t get me wrong, they have done some very good work, but why duplicate efforts in the courts so that they can claim a victory, regardless who else won it too.

[diginit]

I thought legal was legal and rights were rights. Maybe I am wrong.
Howard, You make a very fine point. Ouch. Guess I can't really trust any organization with a political agenda of any kind to do anything other than what they want while seeking more support by any means in order to create more funding and make a name for themselves... All these years, I thought differently. Should have known... I'll have to Email Daniel Tanner and discuss what it would take to start a website since CGF attorneys won't support certain legal rifle targets due to possible darkening their agenda. Bet alot of CG'ers would support it. I know over 100 nearby personally. Afew more in surrounding areas.
Thanks for the idea. If I can get 5 bucks from each of them, That should pay for some bandwidth and support another one of our legal rights in Ca.

[repubconserv]

They won't support it? Or are you pissed that they are not dropping everything and getting to work on assuring the legality of, and defending said "legal rifle target"?

I personally believe that CGF has their priorities straight, reactive targets in my book (and in the grand scheme of things) are no where near important as: carry, rosters, etc. They are on my list, and I'm sure on CGFs list, but again, there are more important things first.

It seems to me that you are not in it for restoring everyones rights, you want your tannerite, and you want it now! If more rights come back with yours, hey thats cool... but if it will hurt "the long run cause" who gives a crap right? you have your exploding targets....

[HowardW56]

They won't support it? Or are you pissed that they are not dropping everything and getting to work on assuring the legality of, and defending said "legal rifle target"?

I personally believe that CGF has their priorities straight, reactive targets in my book (and in the grand scheme of things) are no where near important as: carry, rosters, etc. They are on my list, and I'm sure on CGFs list, but again, there are more important things first.

It seems to me that you are not in it for restoring everyones rights, you want your tannerite, and you want it now! If more rights come back with yours, hey thats cool... but if it will hurt "the long run cause" who gives a crap right? you have your exploding targets....

I agree, I believe CGF has a litigation strategy laid out for the next several years. Incremental wins that give them a basis for further challenges and hopefully more wins!

Trying to attack all of the laws at once sets up for what could be a devastatingly huge failure...

I will be very happy with smaller, but significant sucesses, with more to follow...

[HowardW56]

I thought legal was legal and rights were rights. Maybe I am wrong.
Howard, You make a very fine point. Ouch. Guess I can't really trust any organization with a political agenda of any kind to do anything other than what they want while seeking more support by any means in order to create more funding and make a name for themselves... All these years, I thought differently. Should have known... I'll have to Email Daniel Tanner and discuss what it would take to start a website since CGF attorneys won't support certain legal rifle targets due to possible darkening their agenda. Bet alot of CG'ers would support it. I know over 100 nearby personally. Afew more in surrounding areas.
Thanks for the idea. If I can get 5 bucks from each of them, That should pay for some bandwidth and support another one of our legal rights in Ca.

What do you mean by "Legal Rifle Targets"?

[a1c]

I'll be making an end-of-the-year donation that will represent 5% of my firearms expenses this year (excluding ammo and parts).

[dantodd]

What do you mean by "Legal Rifle Targets"?

Dropping the name Daniel Tanner is a pretty good indication that he means Tannerite. I am not even certain that binary reactive targets are not legal in CA.

[HowardW56]

Dropping the name Daniel Tanner is a pretty good indication that he means Tannerite. I am not even certain that binary reactive targets are not legal in CA.

If that is the issue, regardless whether it is legal or not I would think that any issue there is with Tannerite is quite a ways down the list of priorities for now.