What are your 'Top 3' ??

[lavgrunt]

Just checkin,'.....Now that the budget mess is over in Sacto, at least for now, what do you feel should be the top 3 legislative priorities for CRPA and its allies?? If it's realistic or plausible is insignificant. Lets pretend it's a perfect world.......We need a starting point.........Thanks for your input!!

[nicki]

Legislative agendas. Offense.

Of course we should defend against all bad bills, that being said, we need to go on offense. Key to improving our chances of winning are to propose bills that can help the rights of others.

1. Color of Law and malicious prosecutions: We must streamline the process for someone who is persecuted by the local DA, a example are gun owners being prosecuted for unloaded open carry or so called "loaded" gun violations.

2. The Cal DOJ firearms division has tried to slip in underground regulations and pull fast ones on the office of administrative law. Currently right now the Federal Government has a paperwork reduction act, the key to their law is that government forms must first be approved by the OMB, then the forms are assigned a control number and a expiration date.

The key to getting a form approved is the agency has to show the statutory authority to create the form in the first place.

The paperwork reduction act says that Fed forms that are information collection requests that lack a OMB number are bootleg and can be ignored by the public since they have no force of law.

Now, if we put penalties on agencies that tried to use bootleg forms, that would give redress for administrative abuse.

3. Push a stolen gun bill that requires LE agencies to contact owners of stolen firearms. Not contacting owners means that possibly other crimes are not being properly followed up on. Require firearms to be returned ASAP.

Firearms should be returned in proper condition, the person who got caught with a stolen gun should be assessed a additional penalty for servicing on a stolen firearm.

Right now stolen guns have the potential of becoming so called "drop guns".

4. Subject police officers to the same gun laws as civilians for their private guns.

Nicki

[Can'thavenuthingood]

The word Repeal comes to mind, when was the last time anything was repealed?

Shall Issue.

If someone has already owns a firearm why must they wait 10 days?

Vick

[slowjonn]

1. Get rid of the "Safe Handgun" list. I know about the nerfs, but that list just needs to die.

2. Shall issue CCW

3. Repeal of the AW law.

[berto]

1. Shall issue

2. Safe list

3. AWB

Put us on equal footing with America.

[wildhawker]

A perfect world would include incorporation, so we'll use that as the context for this exercise.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=145910

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=133664&highlight=priority

My question for CRPA: are you basing your strategy on a Nordyke win? Many of the priorities stated in previous posts can and likely will be addressed (to some degree or another) via the courts. If so, shouldn't "... the top 3 legislative priorities for CRPA and its allies..." be based on facets more readily or expediently taken up in the legislature?

[wildhawker]

I would have thought we'd see some sort of response to this in the past 16 hours...

no more from Calgunners or CRPA?

[rweller]

WOW! It seems that the short list revolves around Shall Issue, AWB and dumping the Safe List.

The original question was what should be the top 3 for the legislature. Here's the bad news. The majority in the Assembly are hopelessly anti-gun liberals and have been since 1998. Nothing has changed, there are no more pro-gun members in the Assembly than there were 11 years ago. In fact, its makeup today, according to CRPA's legislative advocate, is more anti-gun since the recent elections than ever.

The Senate surprisingly might be a little more pro-gun, or as the case may be, a little less anti-gun than in past years. All this means that if anti-gun bills come up that require expenditure of funds, there is a chance it can be stopped due to a slight shift in its makeup. But, make no mistake, it is still anti-gun.

The problem in California has been and continues to be a majority in the legislature with an anti-gun bent.

I say this because we act as though all we have to do is get the legislature to pass pro-gun bills and life is good. We will NOT get a shall-issue bill out of this legislature. We will NOT get them to rescind the AWB. And, it is doubtful that the Safe List will go away. This of course assumes that we continue with the legislature in its current makeup. The best that can be hoped for is to mitigate the damage of some of the bills, and that is what our legislative advocate and NRA try and do in Sacramento.

I'm continually amazed at how gun owners in California think all we have to do is send a legislative advocate in Sacramento, throw a little money around and we will get what we want. Not in California. It's filled with legislators who aren't swayed by money on conservative issues. They are socialists at heart. Most do not feel you should own any gun, let alone a semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military weapon. And "shall-issue" is reserved for people who have political connections. Why do you think the current law favors counties issuing CCWs in this state? Because Sheriffs are politicians first, in most cases, and law enforcement officers second. There are a number of exceptions, of which I know personally. But if you think LA, San Diego and other large counties are going to span a non-partisan, non-politician type Sheriff, you must be smoking something funny, because it isn't happening.

If we want the legislature to give us our gun rights back, we have to vote for pro-gun candidates. Easily said isn't it. But, here's the dirty secret that every Democrat in Sacramento knows. Gun owners in the populous counties/cities in California areas don't vote in enough numbers to make a whit of difference in the elections. I know that is a generalized statement, and I know some of you vote, as do I, will take offense to my statement. However, it is an unfortunate fact. I published an article after the 2004 elections based on a study of a district in Orange/La County in which a candidate studied a gun show list attendees and how many were registered to vote in the district he ran in. To his surprise it was far less than 6%.

Now, I ask you: How does anyone expect to get anything when gun owners aren't voting? I would submit that an informal poll of Calguns members would certainly yield a higher percentage. But, the appalling thing is, I bet a lot of you don't vote.

Having said that, the hope in the short term 3-5 year period are court challenges based on Heller. The AWB is on the target list for sure. Whether "Shall Issue" has any legs in the court is debatable. I'm not a lawyer, but our only hope is whittling it down over time. And, hoping Illinois gets their CCW, which is being pushed now. California not having a "shall issue" will loom bigger as it begins to stand alone trying to justify why its politicians won't allow its citizens the same protection as most every other state, including liberal ones. Maybe they can be embarrassed into doing something, though I doubt it.

But, having said all that, I believe our single biggest issue in California is getting all gun owners to vote. If that is done, we can start to make progress in the legislature.

How about Calguns members. How many of you DON'T VOTE? I'd like to know why you won't register. I think I've heard it all, but you never know. Maybe someone has a legitimate reason that I haven't heard yet.

Ralph Weller
CRPA Board Member
Editor: GunNewsDaily.com

[Can'thavenuthingood]

The 6% number for gun owners voting sounded a bit skewed in some manner. I posted a Poll here and though it is no bonafide study it does show 98% of Calgunners vote in statewide elections.
Only 107 answered Yes they vote, 2 said No they do not.

Enough of a sample to establish a strong indication that as a whole Calgunners vote. We discuss the issues, research the issues and dive into the Penal Codes as well as all California Law. We watch the politickers and listen to them while they are in session and voting.
We are a voting bloc the politicians can hear breathing in their chambers.

Back in 2004 when the 6% story was written Calguns had about 5,000(?) members if that. About 3 weeks ago when we went to work on the Calguns booth for the Cow Palace show we were right at 21,000 folks and as of this writng 24,580 registered members are calling themselves Calgunners.

Read some of the comments of the newer members just signing up now. Some have been on this sight for several years lurking, watching and learning. The Cow Palace show booth ignited their desire to do something positive, to jump into the fray and do battle with those who think gun owners are a passive lot. The lurkers registered and have joined us as Activist's.

More shows are coming and we will be there. Not as a recruitment drive for Calguns but as an answer to the question 'Why isn't someone doing something?'

We have no committees, we collect no dues. we meet whenever we log onto the forum.
Right now I think its safe to say that the 24,000 number is easily doubled due to spuose's and significant others. Thats 48,000 people.

Then I'd say there are probably another 20,000 in lurk mode watching, reading, researching and deciding issues. If they had no interest in guns they would not be here on this forum so my guess is they can be counted as more folks thinking like a Calgunner.

So thats about 68,000 voters right there and I think that is a very conservative figure given the crowds at the gun shows and California's 36 million people.

The 6% figure of gun owners voting is obsolete and misleading to the politicians.

Vick

[rweller]

Hi Vick,

It wouldn't surprise me if a higher percentage of Calguns members voted. I think we are talking with folks here who are committed to the cause and have no fear.

I was shocked by the numbers as well. But I've worked gun shows in So Cal for years. Trying to get gun show attendees to register to vote is impossible. Most aren't interested. And the reasons they give are rather lame. The most popular one I have heard over the years by far is that they don't want the government to know who they are. Is that a joke or what?

I suppose if they don't have a drivers license, never paid taxes, never registered the vehicle that they drove to the gun show, or never purchased a handgun in California in the last twenty plus years, I might buy into their story. But, how can you take people like that seriously.

The second most popular, which defies common sense is, they don't want the government to know they own guns. What? What does voting have to do with owning guns? Apparently nothing to you and me, but to them it's an answer that defies logic.

I have to tell you Vick, I don't have much faith in the everyday run-of-the-mill gun owner. I vote, you vote and no doubt those faithful that hit this site regularly vote. But it's the guys lurking in the wings around this site (non-members) and the other 5 - 10 million gun owners in California that I fear don't participate. If they did, and voted for gun rights, California would be a different place. There is no question about that. Gun owners are a large portion of the population.

As I said then, and I'll say it again now, gun owners have no clue what kind of horsepower they have at the polling booth. They have enormous clout, they just don't take advantage of it.

Ralph

[7x57]

I was shocked by the numbers as well. But I've worked gun shows in So Cal for years. Trying to get gun show attendees to register to vote is impossible.

And here I was thinking we should be signing up voters at every NRA booth. Another good idea down in flames.

7x57

[AlexBreya]

1. Get rid of 2A
2. Get rid of 1A
3. Punish success

[wildhawker]

Hi Vick,

It wouldn't surprise me if a higher percentage of Calguns members voted. I think we are talking with folks here who are committed to the cause and have no fear.

I was shocked by the numbers as well. But I've worked gun shows in So Cal for years. Trying to get gun show attendees to register to vote is impossible. Most aren't interested. And the reasons they give are rather lame. The most popular one I have heard over the years by far is that they don't want the government to know who they are. Is that a joke or what?

I suppose if they don't have a drivers license, never paid taxes, never registered the vehicle that they drove to the gun show, or never purchased a handgun in California in the last twenty plus years, I might buy into their story. But, how can you take people like that seriously.

The second most popular, which defies common sense is, they don't want the government to know they own guns. What? What does voting have to do with owning guns? Apparently nothing to you and me, but to them it's an answer that defies logic.

I have to tell you Vick, I don't have much faith in the everyday run-of-the-mill gun owner. I vote, you vote and no doubt those faithful that hit this site regularly vote. But it's the guys lurking in the wings around this site (non-members) and the other 5 - 10 million gun owners in California that I fear don't participate. If they did, and voted for gun rights, California would be a different place. There is no question about that. Gun owners are a large portion of the population.

As I said then, and I'll say it again now, gun owners have no clue what kind of horsepower they have at the polling booth. They have enormous clout, they just don't take advantage of it.

Ralph

Then let's help each other here- we can definitely appreciate your experience in this regard. In return, we'll organize friendly, passionate and knowledgeable Calgunners into PR teams throughout the state which can be effective tools for the RKBA fight if properly utilized.

We don't plan on keeping the Calguns public events constrained to gun shows, although we are using them as the learning curve; we definitely have plans to branch out into other forums (so to speak), and build relationships and synergies with sympathetic groups and individuals. In fact we'd love to be a part of one of your functions sometime in the near future.

Let's work together and gain some traction; if things are truly as bad as you say (and I'm not doubting you here), it may not be shooting fish in a barrel but surely the odds are good that we'll have opportunity- a truly critical component in the equation.

Now, back on topic. What are the CRPA's top 3 priorities from your perspective? We never established if these were based on a Nordyke win or not, which does change the approach in my mind.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

The 6% number for gun owners voting sounded a bit skewed in some manner. I posted a Poll here and though it is no bonafide study it does show 98% of Calgunners vote in statewide elections.

Only 107 answered Yes they vote, 2 said No they do not.

But that means only 109 Calgunners out of 9,276 active Calguns members even took the time to vote in your poll. Only 1.2% voter turnout.

You basically asked people to vote on whether they vote or not.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

But that means only 109 Calgunners out of 9,276 active Calguns members even took the time to vote in your poll. Only 1.2% voter turnout.

You basically asked people to vote on whether they vote or not.

I figured more like a 30% vote as in total number of Calgunners vs actual voters. All CG'ers are eligible so the low turnout would reflect the national numbers if I remember correctly.

Regardless, the high percentage gives me a happy face

Its better once we get them assimulated into the Calguns Mission and the CGN booths at the gun shows appear to be doing just that.
Our 2nd show booth is at Del Mar the 21st then maybe Bakersfield and Costa Mesa for sure.

Vick





Vick