SaveCRPA responds to CRPA cease and desist

[Fish]

Yes, these CRPA guys seem like a bunch of idiots. I'm not an attorney, but even I would know enough to laugh if I got a cease-and-desist like that. (I'd call up my attorney and confirm that I was right to laugh, but I'd be confident enough to laugh first.)


Gene, Brandon, here's what I don't get:

Why is fighting this battle the best use of your time and effort? Aren't your considerable talents better employed in any of the many current legal actions we have going? Improving community outreach? Crafting positive PR for gun rights?

I ask this question in all seriousness: I fully realize that you have information I do not, and so it's entirely possible, likely even, that there's an excellent reason and I simply don't know what it is. I figured that the savecrpa.org website might have this information, but it's pretty long on blow-by-blow documentation of the fight and a bit thin on the question of why.

The only complaint I've heard so far is that CRPA could make better use of the resources at its disposal to further Second Amendment rights, which it almost certainly could, but one has to ask oneself if the resources that will be expended in this internecine warfare will negate any realistic advantage that would come from winning it.

There are times in life when one stands down and walks away, not in spite of the fact that one is the bigger man, but *because* one is the bigger man. There is nothing you need to prove here, and certainly not to those yahoos. Why is this not such a time?

[Jason P]

The issue with saving CRPA is that the membership and resources are already in place to be massively effective. With proper leadership and accountability, CRPA could make a SUBSTANTIAL difference in California. Much easier and faster than building a new .org.

You don't just throw away a new Porsche because it's got a dirty windshield. You just clean the bird crap off the glass and then the passengers can see where they're going.

[Zebra]

I think it's more like a blown head gasket and a rusted out frame...

The issue with saving CRPA is that the membership and resources are already in place to be massively effective. With proper leadership and accountability, CRPA could make a SUBSTANTIAL difference in California. Much easier and faster than building a new .org.

You don't just throw away a new Porsche because it's got a dirty windshield. You just clean the bird crap off the glass and then the passengers can see where they're going.

[hoffmang]

Why is fighting this battle the best use of your time and effort? Aren't your considerable talents better employed in any of the many current legal actions we have going? Improving community outreach? Crafting positive PR for gun rights?

First, (and I think I can speak for the others, but they'll pop up where the disagree) we agree with the sentiment of your point. It's a damn shame we have to deal with the level of incompetence CRPA is saddled with as we really do have better things to do for all of us over the shorter run.

But to answer your question, there are three very serious reasons we think this is a fight worth having. First, CRPA is the lobbying, and electioneering organization. Through our efforts we were able to get a horrible lobbyist who worked at cross purposes to the NRA and we member's best interest in Sacramento dismissed and replaced with a guy who is an absolute team player and a stand up guy. However, and this is the second part, no structural change has been made to CRPA to keep it accountable to it's members. As such, when the excellent Tom Pederson reaches the end of what looks to be a very good run - and that's not as long in the future as many of us would like - this incompetent leadership team and their appointed and not elected future incompetents will chose the next lobbyist...

Third, and finally, CGF, heck even my involvement in the gun rights fight, is designed to end when much of the major issues are off the table. As such, we all deserve a professional, courteous, and effective state organization to fight the ends of the never ending battle to protect our right to keep and bear arms. CRPA has and will continue to claim credibility and in some ways fraudulently suck the un-educated gun owner in. We think that instead of limping along and being actually a burden on those of us actually doing the work to get you more guns and more licenses and easier living as a gun owner that CRPA has the assets to become an actual useful service provider to we, the members.

It just requires accountability of the officers, executive committee, and board to the members. The members need to know that CRPA can never get as far off the rails as it did, and that if it does, it can be brought back by a concerted effort of the members.

Winning civil rights battles often requires reform in your own community. As I've said elsewhere, when King sought to change America, one of the key things he had to change was his own co-clergy first. See his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

I hope that is a serious enough answer to shed some light on why we even care.

-Gene

[Fish]

The issue with saving CRPA is that the membership and resources are already in place to be massively effective. With proper leadership and accountability, CRPA could make a SUBSTANTIAL difference in California. Much easier and faster than building a new .org.

You don't just throw away a new Porsche because it's got a dirty windshield. You just clean the bird crap off the glass and then the passengers can see where they're going.

Is this a dirty windshield, or a bent frame? Is CRPA savable, or irredeemably busted? It appears that they have a membership who apparently won't hold them accountable in addition to a governance structure that makes that difficult. So the ones who are interested in holding them accountable are voting with their feet, which just leaves a larger fraction who aren't.

I understand what you're saying. Sure, there's an awesome amount of potential in an organization that big, and it could be a force to be reckoned with for Second Amendment rights if it only had leadership with the vision and competence. But you know what? "If only" is just that: hypothetical, contrary to fact. We wouldn't even need to have this discussion "if only" the anti-gun crowd would wake up tomorrow morning and see the error of their ways.

I can't predict the future. Maybe this is the best strategy. But fighting a natural ally, or even a friendly neutral, when we have large and powerful enemies is rarely a smart move.

[hoffmang]

It appears that they have a membership who apparently won't hold them accountable in addition to a governance structure that makes that difficult. So the ones who are interested in holding them accountable are voting with their feet, which just leaves a larger fraction who aren't.

Not so. The membership have no way to hold them accountable beyond the public shaming (and maybe a couple other tricks up our sleeves) and voting with their feet. IIRC they had 50K members so they claimed in a court filing in approximately 2004 and have fallen to 28K as of the last annual meeting. A really large portion of the remaining members are life members where it's more work to leave than it is to do nothing and be counted as a member. As such, California gun people are voting with their feet...

-Gene

[jdberger]

Fish,

The membership doesn't have any sort of vote.

None.
Zip.
Nada.

[taperxz]

Very nice, FACTUAL, professional response to CRPA.

[taperxz]

Can I assume that CGN and the Gene Team have resolved SOME of the issues since the thread has been left unscathed? I sure hope so.

[Kestryll]

Can I assume that CGN and the Gene Team have resolved SOME of the issues since the thread has been left unscathed? I sure hope so.

Resolved or not there is nothing wrong with this thread so no reason to have a problem.

CRPA sent their C&D and this is Gene and the others response to it.

I think the C&D was an ill advised act so if they get spanked a bit well, they asked for it.

[taperxz]

Resolved or not there is nothing wrong with this thread so no reason to have a problem.

CRPA sent their C&D and this is Gene and the others response to it.

I think the C&D was an ill advised act so if they get spanked a bit well, they asked for it.

. Right on

[Fish]

It appears we were composing our posts simultaneously, Gene. Thanks for your well-considered responses.

when the excellent Tom Pederson reaches the end of what looks to be a very good run - and that's not as long in the future as many of us would like - this incompetent leadership team and their appointed and not elected future incompetents will chose the next lobbyist...

Keeping Tom Pederson around sounds like an excellent reason. Are there other ways we can solve that problem?

The membership have no way to hold them accountable beyond the public shaming (and maybe a couple other tricks up our sleeves) and voting with their feet. IIRC they had 50K members so they claimed in a court filing in approximately 2004 and have fallen to 28K as of the last annual meeting. A really large portion of the remaining members are life members where it's more work to leave than it is to do nothing and be counted as a member. As such, California gun people are voting with their feet...

So another option, then, is to stand back and let the whole thing collapse under its own weight, or at least turn into a rump of its former self. A shame, certainly, but perhaps the best of all the bad options?

Third, and finally, CGF, heck even my involvement in the gun rights fight, is designed to end when much of the major issues are off the table.

While I appreciate the thought that you will retire when your work is done, a citizen statesman in the classical tradition, I think you're being a bit optimistic: The firearm rights fight will never be over. The belief that collective action is intrinsically benign and individual empowerment dangerous is far too seductive ever to be without adherents. I was recently entertained by a newspaper editorial from the late 19th century about a new revolver and how its "quick action" was obviously far too potentially devastating to be allowed into the hands of the general public. There have always been people who think that way, and there always will be.

This is eternal vigilance. It is the price of freedom.


(... and, I might add, it is a price of which you are paying a disproportionate share, while between career and family most of us, myself included, can barely find time for the occasional Internet posting. You have my heartfelt gratitude.)

[Apocalypsenerd]

Third, and finally, CGF, heck even my involvement in the gun rights fight, is designed to end when much of the major issues are off the table.

-Gene

You folks might see an end to this fight, but my crystal ball says otherwise. You may see a final, crushing defeat for those on the wrong side of it, but historically speaking, the argument pre-dates the Republic. Free people are going to need guys like you LONG after we are in the ground.

I hope that you will take the time to groom another generation of legal eagles before the fatigue of this endeavor pushes you on to other things.

[hoffmang]

Keeping Tom Pederson around sounds like an excellent reason. Are there other ways we can solve that problem?

Sadly, not really. If you're familiar with how crows respond to shiny objects, politics is shiny to incompetents playing at being "gun rights supporters." As such, the unelected "leadership" realizes they have even more of nothing to sell when they're trying to convince you to pay your money to them if they don't have a lobbyist. I hope that Tom continues to enjoy his second career here and I'm sure he's here for quite a few more years, but we have to be realistic that he may want to actually re-retire at some point.

So another option, then, is to stand back and let the whole thing collapse under its own weight, or at least turn into a rump of its former self. A shame, certainly, but perhaps the best of all the bad options?

That may be the ultimate irony here. Incompetents hold onto a death grip so strongly to retain their prestige that the are actually undermining it. I'd prefer better, but if that's what it takes to get them to a point where they can't hire Barney Fife to replace their current lobbyist when he retires because they can't afford it... So be it.

While I appreciate the thought that you will retire when your work is done, a citizen statesman in the classical tradition, I think you're being a bit optimistic: The firearm rights fight will never be over.

This is eternal vigilance. It is the price of freedom.

I have to disagree and agree. On the former point, I will move on. Mark my words here. I have about 4 more issues I want to see put to bed and I'm a realist that there will be some cleanup around them that I'd like to make sure gets done well. However, I do feel that, like the African American Civil Rights movement, the movement to restore the 2nd and 14th amendment will reach our "1980's" faster than they were able to. On the latter, I fully agree this fight will always go on, but when carry, ARs and AKs, buying guns, and some of the quality of gun owner life issues get dealt with at the appellate or Supreme Court level, the field becomes ripe so even the average gun lawyers and gun rights supporters have the tools and infrastructure to win in the ongoing fight.

At that point, I feel there are other items in the Bill of Rights that need my attention.

I want CRPA to be strong, functional, and accountable before I make that decision and transition.

(... and, I might add, it is a price of which you are paying a disproportionate share, while between career and family most of us, myself included, can barely find time for the occasional Internet posting. You have my heartfelt gratitude.)

Thank you.

-Gene

[wildhawker]

At least crows are attracted to shiny objects because they're highly-intelligent and know how to amuse themselves.

CRPA executives' attraction to politics is possibly closer to a really drunk driver and oncoming headlights. The problem we have to fix is that it's not the driver who'll be killed in the likely collision, but the CRPA members who are in the back seat because the authoritarian drunkard won't let them steer the car.

-Brandon