WARNING: UPDATE:: Proposition Withdrawn!!!

[wildhawker]

All,

A few minutes ago on Twitter, I was pointed to a web page at Front Sight entitled "Petition for Shall Issue Concealed Carry in California". As some of you might know, there's been quite a bit of discussion regarding the ballot initiative (no. 11-0056) that purports to make California "shall issue" for carry licenses (i999_11-0056_(concealed_firearms).pdf). I and others have explained in detail elsewhere how the initiative is possibly well-intentioned but creates some significant problems that are best avoided.

After reviewing "Dr." Piazza's letter and instructions on the web page, I highly suspect that the ballot initiative is being used to create a highly-targeted list of potential clients. What better way to build community goodwill, brand recognition, and increase the utilization of their facilities than to create this opportunity to reach thousands of gun owners and future gun owners (those having a sincere and genuine interest in their right to bear arms for self-defense, enough so to sign an initiative)?

Note, especially, this excerpt from the web page:

We will review all petitions for correctness and forward them to the approrpiate [sic] signature-certifying agencies.

(Errors in original.)

Note, also, the below images:



If Dr. Piazza would like to engage with me on this, I'll welcome him to participate here in the open forum home of California's gun owners. However, I have little choice but to warn you of the possible side-effects of this imprudent horse-pill - it's a bad initiative and possibly nothing more than cheap marketing for Front Sight.

-Brandon

[locosway]

This certainly isn't going to end well.

[OleCuss]

It would be good to link to a quick explanation of how this initiative would cause problems for our rights. I remember seeing the reasoning but I don't remember which thread.

[wildhawker]

It would be good to link to a quick explanation of how this initiative would cause problems for our rights. I remember seeing the reasoning but I don't remember which thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=491957

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=508596

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=511560

I'm sure there are others.

See also: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=156804

-Brandon

[QQQ]

I just got this in my inbox.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[guntrust]

I've seen calguns advocate some pretty crazy things, things i consider anti-gun. Opposing this initiative simply because it might not pass the first time (what they call "waste of time") shows calguns' jealousy over what Front Sight can accomplish here. Will it have immediate success? Possibly, but even if it doesn't can you imagine you educational this will be in letting soccer moms know what soccer moms in other states can do to protect their families? The main problem has always been getting on the ballot and Front Sight can actually get that done. Calguns is a business that relies on court cases to get things done - i can see why they are jealous.

[wildhawker]

I've seen calguns advocate some pretty crazy things, things i consider anti-gun. Opposing this initiative simply because it might not pass the first time (what they call "waste of time") shows calguns' jealousy over what Front Sight can accomplish here. Will it have immediate success? Possibly, but even if it doesn't can you imagine you educational this will be in letting soccer moms know what soccer moms in other states can do to protect their families? The main problem has always been getting on the ballot and Front Sight can actually get that done. Calguns is a business that relies on court cases to get things done - i can see why they are jealous.

Since you copied and pasted from Facebook, so shall I copy and paste my response to you there:

David, I'd like to respond to a few of your comments:

(1) I'm not sure what you consider anti-gun. It would help me to understand what objections you have if they were articulated.

(2) The last thing we are is jealous of Front Sight or its founder.

(3) If the exercise was simply educational, why would Front Sight not make tax-deductible donations to 501(c)3 orgs (any suited to this, doesn't need to be ours, or they could start their own) and produce/promulgate educational material?

(4) Do you have some data that proves "Front Sight can actually get that done"?

(5) Calguns Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit that has an entirely uncompensated board of directors and whose product relies on the hard work of its dedicated volunteers.

(6) We do utilize strategic litigation to, as you very accurately stipulate, "get things done". We also employ many other means of affecting positive change and advance civil rights. Front Sight can't say that.

Now that we're past the "CGF is jealous of Front Sight" hurdle, mind refuting the linked arguments against initiative or offering some substantive argument for it?

-Brandon

[AyatollahGondola]

Actually, I am at least happy that people are still engaging the system. So many people are totally disconnected from their government nowadays. Activists are a rare breed, and it might be best to let them try and fail, than encourage them to remain a vegetable. Sometimes we end up browbeating others right out of their rights just like those who have gotten in to power these days, except it's somewhat worse when it comes from what is portended as your own side of the argument.
I could relay my observations of another movement in which a handful of "leaders" began to form an inner sanctum of sorts, and ostracize those others who they percieved were going to do the movement more harm than good. In the end, the bitterness and divide was the worse harm. No one trusts the other, and we ended up a splintered, inneffective, band of renegades

[Mute]

I've seen calguns advocate some pretty crazy things, things i consider anti-gun. Opposing this initiative simply because it might not pass the first time (what they call "waste of time") shows calguns' jealousy over what Front Sight can accomplish here. Will it have immediate success? Possibly, but even if it doesn't can you imagine you educational this will be in letting soccer moms know what soccer moms in other states can do to protect their families? The main problem has always been getting on the ballot and Front Sight can actually get that done. Calguns is a business that relies on court cases to get things done - i can see why they are jealous.

Did you actually read the initiative and some of the poorly thought out changes that were in it? Maybe you should, before making a judgement on Calgun's supposed "jealousy."

[luvtolean]

Actually, I am at least happy that people are still engaging the system. So many people are totally disconnected from their government nowadays. Activists are a rare breed, and it might be best to let them try and fail, than encourage them to remain a vegetable. Sometimes we end up browbeating others right out of their rights just like those who have gotten in to power these days, except it's somewhat worse when it comes from what is portended as your own side of the argument.
I could relay my observations of another movement in which a handful of "leaders" began to form an inner sanctum of sorts, and ostracize those others who they percieved were going to do the movement more harm than good. In the end, the bitterness and divide was the worse harm. No one trusts the other, and we ended up a splintered, inneffective, band of renegades

I guess it's my gift of cynicism kicking in, but this does not seem solely motivated by "activism", in fact it seems it could hurt activists. It seems like promotion of his business to me.

CGF is a group of activists, and it's comical above to see it attacked as a business in defense of Front Sight's actions here, though for trying to convince the underinformed, not necessarily a ineffective method of attack.

[Bert Gamble]

I saw the email and was worried about what the reaction would be. It is difficult when different entities are trying to accomplish the same thing, but are taking different approaches.

I share the fear that losing on a ballot measure could cause serious harm to the fight for our rights. What if the judges look at public opinion to assist in their ruling, rather than going by the law?

Of course there is the other possible outcome, and we win the ballot measure and the California Constitution is changed to reflect the will of the people. Won't some liberal justice just overturn it like they did the Arizona immigration law that was the will of the people?

I agree that this will not end well.

[greasemonkey]

I've seen calguns advocate some pretty crazy things, things i consider anti-gun. Opposing this initiative simply because it might not pass the first time (what they call "waste of time") shows calguns' jealousy over what Front Sight can accomplish here. Will it have immediate success? Possibly, but even if it doesn't can you imagine you educational this will be in letting soccer moms know what soccer moms in other states can do to protect their families? The main problem has always been getting on the ballot and Front Sight can actually get that done. Calguns is a business that relies on court cases to get things done - i can see why they are jealous.

Dave, the only for-profit businesses I see here are Calguns.net, Inc., Frontsight Pyramid Schemes Inc and YOUR Training "Clinic" & trust law-firm. Calguns.net != CalGuns Foundation.

The CalGuns Foundation, as already stated, is a 501(c)3, the board members are NOT paid (and each of them have their own completely unrelated day jobs), the attorneys that coordinate with the CGF do a ****-load of pro-bono work and it's not because they're trying to make a name for themselves....they also make their money & reputation on their day jobs, it would be F'ing expensive if 100% of their time donated to Civil Rights in CA was actually billed for what they're worth.

Further, as requested, can you substantiate your claims that "Calguns" (assuming the CalGuns Foundation?) has supported 'anti-gun' measures or is it just another baseless ad hominem attack because they disagree with the pyramid scheme that you've bought into hook-line-sinker because they have a *nice* training facility (and yes, I've been there for a 4-day basic handgun course).

I have to ask, Dave, what do YOU stand to profit from "Dr." Piazza succeeding with yet another media-blitz for membership? I noticed quite a few Frontsight ads, links & references on your web-page.

http://bit.ly/ztXIL2

NRA certified pistol instructor
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute lifetime membership since 2002--over 50 full days of firearms training; Front Sight Diamond member (including Alaska add-on); member, Front Sight Founder's Society.

[SanPedroShooter]

Everyone knows that if someone else could fix California's gun laws, all those high paid, unpaid volunteers that work for free would be out of a second (or third) time consuming and thankless job....

It looks like the good Dr Pizza is just creating a mailing list...

[acegunnr]

Can CGF draft a reasonable response to Front Sight? Propose solutions rather than just pointing out problems. Put bias and animosity aside.

[AyatollahGondola]

I guess it's my gift of cynicism kicking in, but this does not seem solely motivated by "activism", in fact it seems it could hurt activists. It seems like promotion of his business to me.

CGF is a group of activists, and it's comical above to see it attacked as a business in defense of Front Sight's actions here, though for trying to convince the underinformed, not necessarily a ineffective method of attack.

I'm not going to advise people about the intent of Front Sight's effort because I don't really know. But there could be at least a little evidence of the charges included with the accusation. What I've come to dislike is the innuendo that grows legs based upon the credibility of those who make the charges in the first place.
A business getting involved in the effort is not inherently bad. And, the addition of requests to provide information to the proponent is likewise not inherently nefarious. At least there is more advertisement of the cause, even if it is not perceived as advantageous by some. I don't like how the process is used by monied interests, but that should be taken up in the legislature. Brady and their betheren are always using the process to advertise for their businesses...and yes; now I see the opposition as a business.