CRPA "The Firing Line" Article page 17

[jdberger]

Technology is not our forte'. We're working on it. It's sad.

[bigcalidave]

Changes take time. I was pretty upset at the editorial style of that "article" myself. We did say that we needed a group to vet articles, right?

Please don't use one article in our newsletter as a reason not to support the CRPA. Things slip through the cracks sometimes, it doesn't outweigh the greater good. Many of the changes with CRPA are in the works, and will need the support of everyone from Calguns.

[Flintlock Tom]

Changes take time. I was pretty upset at the editorial style of that "article" myself. We did say that we needed a group to vet articles, right?

Please don't use one article in our newsletter as a reason not to support the CRPA. Things slip through the cracks sometimes, it doesn't outweigh the greater good. Many of the changes with CRPA are in the works, and will need the support of everyone from Calguns.

If it was just "one article" I suspect you would not be seeing the irritation voiced here. This article is consistent, in tone and direction, with many articles over the last several years.
Only one of the reasons I chose not to renew my membership last year.

[CRPAGunner]

I'm posting because in no small measure various reports here that the CRPA had been "fixed," and was now working with CGF and others to be a bit more pro-gun than they had been in the past.

I was disappointed to read their article in the Firing Line, page 17, "Re: Open Carry Report from Thousand Oaks Street Fair." I agree with the writer's "unloaded open carry is bad," sentiment based on the "it attracts negative attention and freaks some people out," (with the recently enacted legislation as case in point), but I strongly disaprove of the author's FUD:

"This is why the cop who encountered our open carry hero examined the gun further. In my mind he did not go far enough and should have searched the person as well as his wife for a possible loaded magazine. The presence of a loaded magazine whould have shed an entirely different ligth on the matter."

So here we have an op-ed piece, from an ostensibly pro-gun organization, advocating to go beyond the 4th amendment violation known as the (e) check to provide a search for a loaded magazine, which prior to the new law going into effect is legal! If the officer did violate their 4th amendment rights, found a loaded magazine, what would Mr. Hamilton advocate at that point in time? Arrest him?


I guess this is in response to a prior article, and in fairness I didn't see it, but still, I find it unconscionable that the CRPA would be lending itself to an anti-individual rights stance around the 4th amendement like this.

Dissapointed, CRPA. What "good work," have they done recently such that they deserve my support (as opposed to the CGF, etc)?

The article in question is not an op-ed, nor was it written by anyone in the CRPA leadership to include members of the Board of Directors. This article was submitted to us by one of our CRPA members, one of over 30,000 members. In other words, the author is 'one of us.' I understand that the article may be distasteful to some of our members. However, how can we be such strong advocates of our Second Amendment rights, yet be perfectly willing to sacrifice the first amendment rights of one of our members simply because we may find their opinion on UOC distasteful? In other words, we are not the 'New York Times' or the 'Washington Post.' All CRPA members have a voice in this organization and are entitled to have their opinions printed and not be censored by CRPA or anyone else because we may find their opinions differ from ours. I would remind you that CRPA opposed AB 144 from start to finish. That alone, should make it very clear what the 'official' position of CRPA was and has been on you UOC. For those of you who have commented in this thread and do not agree with the article's author, please by all means, feel free to submit a rebuttal. I guarantee that it will be published in the firing line just as this article was. Personally, I believe in respecting everyone's rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and not just those under the Second Amendment. We are all in this together and our membership is made up of gun owners and sportsmen from many walks of life and believe it or not, we do not all think the same about every issue. However, it would be very hypocritical and detrimental for any organization to cherry pick articles submitted by its members simply based on whether we agree with their position or not. If you are a dues paying member of CRPA in good standing, you have a voice in this organization and your opinions matter.

Indeed. As somebody who just rejoined CRPA hoping the bad days were over, I'm not especially encouraged by this.

Thank you very much for your membership! I can guarantee you that the bad days are over.

CRPA has never been one for the FACTS re CA gun laws.

I had them tell me 2 years ago that I was breaking the law for having an open holster on my belt while at Cal-Expo.
I have had them tell me that a full mag was illegal to carry.
that I could not carry the empty mag inside the mag well.

We all say do not ask a cop or a gun store clerk about gun laws. I add CRPA to that list.

I can't wait till they try and tell me that AB144 banned unloaded open carry.

This kind of thing is absolutely intolerable! Please send me a PM on where and when this happened and the details. I will absolutely look into this and make sure it never happens again! If you remember any names, please be sure to include them, but any details you can provide would be very helpful.

Instead of canceling or not renewing your membership, send them an email and let them know how you feel. I'll be doing just that today.

Great idea! We encourage and welcome member feedback.

Changes take time. I was pretty upset at the editorial style of that "article" myself. We did say that we needed a group to vet articles, right?

Please don't use one article in our newsletter as a reason not to support the CRPA. Things slip through the cracks sometimes, it doesn't outweigh the greater good. Many of the changes with CRPA are in the works, and will need the support of everyone from Calguns.

Dave is absolutely correct in his statements! And I am very happy to say that Dave is one of the leaders on our Board of Directors in making sure that the bad old days never come back.

If it was just "one article" I suspect you would not be seeing the irritation voiced here. This article is consistent, in tone and direction, with many articles over the last several years.
Only one of the reasons I chose not to renew my membership last year.

Sorry to hear that you chose not to renew your membership. I would be interested to hear some of the other issues and articles that you are not happy with. Please send me a PM at your convenience. Thanks.

[CitaDeL]

The article in question is not an op-ed, nor was it written by anyone in the CRPA leadership to include members of the Board of Directors. This article was submitted to us by one of our CRPA members, one of over 30,000 members. In other words, the author is 'one of us.' I understand that the article may be distasteful to some of our members. However, how can we be such strong advocates of our Second Amendment rights, yet be perfectly willing to sacrifice the first amendment rights of one of our members simply because we may find their opinion on UOC distasteful? In other words, we are not the 'New York Times' or the 'Washington Post.' All CRPA members have a voice in this organization and are entitled to have their opinions printed and not be censored by CRPA or anyone else because we may find their opinions differ from ours. I would remind you that CRPA opposed AB 144 from start to finish. That alone, should make it very clear what the 'official' position of CRPA was and has been on you UOC. For those of you who have commented in this thread and do not agree with the article's author, please by all means, feel free to submit a rebuttal. I guarantee that it will be published in the firing line just as this article was. Personally, I believe in respecting everyone's rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and not just those under the Second Amendment. We are all in this together and our membership is made up of gun owners and sportsmen from many walks of life and believe it or not, we do not all think the same about every issue. However, it would be very hypocritical and detrimental for any organization to cherry pick articles submitted by its members simply based on whether we agree with their position or not. If you are a dues paying member of CRPA in good standing, you have a voice in this organization and your opinions matter.

If membership is all that it would take to ensure I would have my voice heard on any particular firearms topic in a CRPA publication, sign me up. I would be happy to draw parallels of this editorial with Jim Zumbo's goof over how 'assault weapons' have no place in a hunters arsenal.

Articles like these, that are published without disclaimer disavowing the authors views not being the official CRPA stance, can ONLY be construed to be endorsed by the publishing party. Also, they make gun owners appear as if we have made choices or conduct ourselves in a manner that we should apologize for. So, I say choose. Either your editors disavow the members personal opinion as not being the CRPA's platform and provide additional commentary elucidating this, OR cherry pick articles that do fit the CRPA's mission.

[vlsgmc]

What the...

"However, it would be very hypocritical and detrimental for any organization to cherry pick articles submitted by its members simply based on whether we agree with their position or not. If you are a dues paying member of CRPA in good standing, you have a voice in this organization and your opinions matter."

So, any member in good status can write an article and your organization will publish it, regardless of how anti-second, anti personal freedom, or painfully incorrect it is? Do you also publish member submitted articles that contain illegal or unsafe advice? Sounds like another reason not to support the CRPA. A member writing, calling, or emailing you is exercising their right to do so, choosing not to publish garbage is not being hypocritical or denying them their rights. At the very least, this artice should have been folowed by an editorial note pointing out the obvious issues that searching for a loaded magazine could have caused.

[Bolillo]

All CRPA members have a voice in this organization and are entitled to have their opinions printed and not be censored by CRPA or anyone else because we may find their opinions differ from ours.

Watch that slippery slope! By your "wide open" logic above, any Brady, LCAV, or MAIG person who can scrape up $22 to become a CRPA member is somehow entitled to their 1A rights via The Firing Line. 1A prevents the government from interfering with free speech, obviously. But CRPA is a private entity paying for their own paper and ink -- 1A doesn't apply. Anybody who doesn't like that is free to start their own newsletter, web page, forum, etc.. on their dime.

I think you probably want to narrow the editorial policy to only include articles which are consistent with the key principles of the CRPA. That should include (at a minimum) 2A, 14A, and the subject of the controversy in this article, 4A.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be pedantic about this. I'm only trying to get it clearly understood that there must be a taller barrier to get articles in TFL than just a $22 membership.

Thanks for addressing the issues in this thread.

[JeffW]

Mr. Montanarella,

First and foremost thank you for taking the time and coming here to address these issues.

I'm writing as a recreational shooter, a current CRPA member, past CRPA donor, and current small-scale donor to various other guns-rights organizations.

The article in question is not an op-ed, nor was it written by anyone in the CRPA leadership to include members of the Board of Directors.

This isn't clear to the casual reader of the newsletter. As others in this thread have stated, this type of distancing after the fact is not as effective as a disclaimer on the submitted article, or other clear language.

This article was submitted to us by one of our CRPA members, one of over 30,000 members. In other words, the author is 'one of us.' I understand that the article may be distasteful to some of our members. However, how can we be such strong advocates of our Second Amendment rights, yet be perfectly willing to sacrifice the first amendment rights of one of our members simply because we may find their opinion on UOC distasteful?

You were quoting me so I'll assume this was directed at me. I had mentioned, I actually agree with the authors position on UOC-- I disagree with attitude towards the 4th amendment. I don't find your first amendment argument especially compelling--as is often pointed out, freedom of the press belongs to those who have the presses, and I believe there is a substantial difference in not printing someone's article and actively oppressing their 1st amendment rights.

I believe your newsletter should be for informing, mobilizing, and growing the member base, and any article that is isn't help achieve those goals is more than just wasted effort, it is actively hurting your "brand."

In other words, we are not the 'New York Times' or the 'Washington Post.' All CRPA members have a voice in this organization and are entitled to have their opinions printed and not be censored by CRPA or anyone else because we may find their opinions differ from ours.

If this is the CRPA's official position, then it is good to know, and something I will have to consider when directing my limited funds towards defending our individual rights.

[ZombieTactics]

The article serves as evidence of the little schisms which persist among gun owners. Earl Hamilton apparently sees "gun rights" as only that which serves his personal rights as a hunter. He simply does not understand how elitist and provincial his position - with all the talk of beveled-glass gun cabinets, etc. - comes across to the non-hunters among us. He is simply ignorant-as-hell on many points in his piece ($700 Glocks?, c'mon, that's not even trying.) and just doesn't know any better.

I know several of these guys, and they are as rich a fount of anti-defensive-gun rhetoric as any Brady member. They honestly don't care about anything except protecting their right to kill defenseless animals with bloodthirsty glee (see how you can phrase things if you want to?) and making sure nobody "scares people" in a way which might limit that activity. They are NOT pro-gun or pro-2A, except in their narrow definition of the terms. These are the people who brought you "sporting purpose", and many still parrot that language.

Now let's be clear about my meaning. I am not a hunter. I have no taste for the sport personally, even having engaged in it as a youngster. My concerns regarding 2A issues are focused elsewhere. I think beveled-glass gun cabinets (as opposed to real safes) are stupid. And to be clear, hunting is as polarizing an issue among some as self-defense is among others. Many are anti-2A because guns mean (to them) "murdering bambi" and piles of dead pigeons shot for no other purpose than sport. But ultimately it needs to be recognized that the 2A is a RIGHT, which extends beyond my own sensibilities and tastes, or those of anyone else.

That being said, I strongly suspect that anyone submitting an article which was anti-hunting in its tone would find that article summarily rejected. Supporting the 2A means supporting the whole of the right. I think its time that we need to insist that this is the definition of being a "gun rights supporter". If the CRPA is an advocacy organization, they need to be clear about what it is that they support. Simple editorial consistency along those lines is not censorship, but is simply having the strength and will to stand up straight and speak clearly.

[cindynles]

I would be interested to hear some of the other issues and articles that you are not happy with. Please send me a PM at your convenience. Thanks.

Here is one that I remember.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=211326

[JeffW]

ZombieTactics,

Well said! You are more eloquent on this issue than I, but your words resonate with me.

+1!

[wildhawker]

Here's an example of where proper editing would be useful: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=453131.

If data is running months behind the curve, what is the real value of the publication? Reporting on very esoteric NRA competitions that most CRPA members don't participate in may be of interest to a segment of the membership; re-reading Chuck Michel's press releases might conceivably be exciting in some way also.

TFL's publishing of the subject article in the OP without any disclaimer is hardly defendable. This is not an issue of a member's right to voice their opinion in a full-page featured editorial [without any note that the person or their views do not represent the organization] in an official publication of the organization, or 'censorship' if the reverse, or any other such thing. It's about prudence, perception, and product. I think it's reasonable that CRPA members should expect its publications and their editors to write and act prudently, and I believe that NRA's editors would never had allowed the subject article to be published in the Rifleman because of the perception issues created by doing so. Finally, does the subject article represent the product of the CRPA? It's not a very comfortable question to answer.

It appears Tony still does not understand the difference between "first amendment rights" and private speech; it's critical to our cause that we always remain mindful of how our adversaries will leverage oversights and mitigate exposure where possible. That said, I'd love to see his passion for participation translate into earnest support of actual members' rights, such as those of democratic elections and bylaws which do not exclude the majority of CRPA members from contributing on the board of directors.

-Brandon

[jdberger]

I'm also going to have to disagree with Mr. Montanarella.

Opinion articles printed in The Firing Line (should) represent the collective opinion of the Board of Directors and illustrate the direction of the organization. Articles which are divisive and insulting toward our membership (and the greater gun-owning community) shouldn't be published.

Mr. McCarthy was a guest at our last Board of Directors meeting. Why would we want to insult him so soon after his visit? It doesn't seem like a very good way to expand our membership.

My understanding, as a Director, is that CRPA is a "Big Tent" organization. Among the SmallBore and Bullseye shooters, we welcome the folks interested in Self-Defense and Civil Rights advocates. The latter includes the OC folks. Making OC advocates unwelcome is cutting off our collective nose to spite our face. We're not yet strong enough to be divided.

We have enough to discuss at the pending BoD meeting. It's a shame we'll probably need to tackle the issue The Firing Line's editorial content, too.

[Librarian]

OK, we now have the CRPA President and several CRPA board members paying attention to the perceived problem, with ample input from 'the public'.

For the nonce, let's allow the now-noticed condition to be handled off the forum.