Folks,
A while back I published a critique of Angel Shamaya's KABA website, and it wasn't just closed, it was deleted completely.
If any moderators don't know what I'm talking about, a copy is archived here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/byekaba.html
I recently exchanged EMail with somebody well-known who wanted me to try and make peace with Angel, when I explained that I couldn't. He took that for "won't", and I corrected him thusly:
--------------------------
Ah, I see where you and I are disconnecting.
You're assuming I'm saying I "won't" work with him, when I've been saying "can't".
Allow me to explain.
In most states, there is a local organization that handles gun-rights politics, usually (but not always) as an NRA affiliate organization. Examples include Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership (MCRGO), etc.
Go here and look under "affiliations" in the bottom left corner:
http://www.goal.org/
In California, it's different. Way different.
The NRA runs the grassroots communications network and local activist meetings directly, called the NRA Member's Councils. They also directly pay for an entire lobbying office in the state capitol, an entire law office in LA with a staff of over 20, and pay a guy to run the MC system. MC chapters have the ability to make organized presentations to local city councils and county boards of supervisors AS THE NRA, not as "concerned local citizens" or "some local gun group", but as THE perceived 800lb gorilla of the lobbying world.
As you can imagine, that's pretty cool from the Point Of View of local activists, but pretty damn frightening from the POV of Fairfax. Why scary? Because untrained amateurs are being allowed to politic under the NRA brand name! It's a measure of how desperate the situation is out here. (Yes, there's still a difference between "NRA" and "NRA Member's Council" but it's not going to be noticed by some tree-hugging grabber twit on a city council or whatever.)
So under the circumstances, there's some limits put on the MCs. We can't use the NRA brand label to support groups that are devoted to the destruction of the NRA! If a Member's Council does anyways, the NRA will yank it's charter and sue 'em if they ever call themselves an "NRA Member's Council" again. Basic trademark law here.
You know all those neat exposes on CCW abuse? I wasn't allowed to post links to them on the MC EMail list. I wasn't allowed to hand out copies at MC meetings if they had KABA's name still attached! And I wasn't allowed to use the CCW abuse research being compiled at the NRA's law offices in articles that were to appear on KABA.
Are you starting to get the picture here?
I have to work with these Calif NRA-connected people and groups. IF it was any other state, it wouldn't be quite such a big deal but it IS California and I'm not going to let %$#^%$ gun-grabber policies and Sheriff's department practices run me out of my HOME. So I'm going to stay and fight, and that means working with the NRA, and that means:
So long, Angel. (At least as long as he keeps up this idiotic war with the NRA.)
--------------------------
It is no secret that Angel believes that support by the NRA for shall-issue CCW bills instead of backing Vermont Carry is treason to the cause.
My view is that no legislature in the US is likely to pass a Vermont bill any time soon. That leads to situations where (as one example) 55% of a legislature is pro-carry, the "Vermont or bust" crowd persuades a small chunk of those to back a Vermont Bill, and the NRA gets upset and strongarms that "hardcore minority of legislators" to get on the shall-issue program, which otherwise will have only 48% support and go down in flames.
Each time this has happened, going back *years*, Angel and his allies have screamed "TRAITOR!" at the NRA. Personally, I'm just sick of it. I've been fighting for shall-issue in California for six years now - if we get close, and a bunch of morons try and slip Vermont in at the last minute screwing everything up, you can bet I'll be *pissed*.
This has happened over and over again, in state after state. The latest is Colorado, and I agree that somebody at the state-level NRA affiliate may have goofed somewhat on the latest shall-issue bill but that still doesn't warrant the response from the "hardcore set".
OK, I've laid out the basic difference here between Angel and myself.
So what does this have to do with TFL?
TFL has allowed an =>UNLIMITED<= amount of "bashing" of the NRA. I ran a board-wide search on the words "NRA AND traitors" and got 37 hits.
Check out any of the threads in the list you'll get, and you'll find stuff like this:
"It's not about "not being hardcore enough," friend. It's about NRA compromising your rights away. If that doesn't bother you, fine. Don't expect everybody else to turn a blind eye to traitors just because you do."
Know who wrote that?
Angel himself, at:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...ge=25&highlight=NRA AND traitors&pagenumber=2
So my question to TFL management is this:
Is "heavy criticism" of gun rights groups going to be RESTRICTED to the NRA, and criticism of all other groups BANNED? Do you believe Angel Shamaya is a human being, while Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston are animatronic robots of some sort?
I eagerly await your answer to this apparant double standard.
It's important, because I've completely rebuilt my website, adding cool stuff such as a downloadable *official* California CCW application .PDF literally smuggled out of the DOJ. And that criticism of Angel's site is on my webpage, so if I mention the total revamp I've done, all this is likely to come up.
I'll send the URL for this thread to Angel.
A while back I published a critique of Angel Shamaya's KABA website, and it wasn't just closed, it was deleted completely.
If any moderators don't know what I'm talking about, a copy is archived here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/byekaba.html
I recently exchanged EMail with somebody well-known who wanted me to try and make peace with Angel, when I explained that I couldn't. He took that for "won't", and I corrected him thusly:
--------------------------
Ah, I see where you and I are disconnecting.
You're assuming I'm saying I "won't" work with him, when I've been saying "can't".
Allow me to explain.
In most states, there is a local organization that handles gun-rights politics, usually (but not always) as an NRA affiliate organization. Examples include Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership (MCRGO), etc.
Go here and look under "affiliations" in the bottom left corner:
http://www.goal.org/
In California, it's different. Way different.
The NRA runs the grassroots communications network and local activist meetings directly, called the NRA Member's Councils. They also directly pay for an entire lobbying office in the state capitol, an entire law office in LA with a staff of over 20, and pay a guy to run the MC system. MC chapters have the ability to make organized presentations to local city councils and county boards of supervisors AS THE NRA, not as "concerned local citizens" or "some local gun group", but as THE perceived 800lb gorilla of the lobbying world.
As you can imagine, that's pretty cool from the Point Of View of local activists, but pretty damn frightening from the POV of Fairfax. Why scary? Because untrained amateurs are being allowed to politic under the NRA brand name! It's a measure of how desperate the situation is out here. (Yes, there's still a difference between "NRA" and "NRA Member's Council" but it's not going to be noticed by some tree-hugging grabber twit on a city council or whatever.)
So under the circumstances, there's some limits put on the MCs. We can't use the NRA brand label to support groups that are devoted to the destruction of the NRA! If a Member's Council does anyways, the NRA will yank it's charter and sue 'em if they ever call themselves an "NRA Member's Council" again. Basic trademark law here.
You know all those neat exposes on CCW abuse? I wasn't allowed to post links to them on the MC EMail list. I wasn't allowed to hand out copies at MC meetings if they had KABA's name still attached! And I wasn't allowed to use the CCW abuse research being compiled at the NRA's law offices in articles that were to appear on KABA.
Are you starting to get the picture here?
I have to work with these Calif NRA-connected people and groups. IF it was any other state, it wouldn't be quite such a big deal but it IS California and I'm not going to let %$#^%$ gun-grabber policies and Sheriff's department practices run me out of my HOME. So I'm going to stay and fight, and that means working with the NRA, and that means:
So long, Angel. (At least as long as he keeps up this idiotic war with the NRA.)
--------------------------
It is no secret that Angel believes that support by the NRA for shall-issue CCW bills instead of backing Vermont Carry is treason to the cause.
My view is that no legislature in the US is likely to pass a Vermont bill any time soon. That leads to situations where (as one example) 55% of a legislature is pro-carry, the "Vermont or bust" crowd persuades a small chunk of those to back a Vermont Bill, and the NRA gets upset and strongarms that "hardcore minority of legislators" to get on the shall-issue program, which otherwise will have only 48% support and go down in flames.
Each time this has happened, going back *years*, Angel and his allies have screamed "TRAITOR!" at the NRA. Personally, I'm just sick of it. I've been fighting for shall-issue in California for six years now - if we get close, and a bunch of morons try and slip Vermont in at the last minute screwing everything up, you can bet I'll be *pissed*.
This has happened over and over again, in state after state. The latest is Colorado, and I agree that somebody at the state-level NRA affiliate may have goofed somewhat on the latest shall-issue bill but that still doesn't warrant the response from the "hardcore set".
OK, I've laid out the basic difference here between Angel and myself.
So what does this have to do with TFL?
TFL has allowed an =>UNLIMITED<= amount of "bashing" of the NRA. I ran a board-wide search on the words "NRA AND traitors" and got 37 hits.
Check out any of the threads in the list you'll get, and you'll find stuff like this:
"It's not about "not being hardcore enough," friend. It's about NRA compromising your rights away. If that doesn't bother you, fine. Don't expect everybody else to turn a blind eye to traitors just because you do."
Know who wrote that?
Angel himself, at:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...ge=25&highlight=NRA AND traitors&pagenumber=2
So my question to TFL management is this:
Is "heavy criticism" of gun rights groups going to be RESTRICTED to the NRA, and criticism of all other groups BANNED? Do you believe Angel Shamaya is a human being, while Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston are animatronic robots of some sort?
I eagerly await your answer to this apparant double standard.
It's important, because I've completely rebuilt my website, adding cool stuff such as a downloadable *official* California CCW application .PDF literally smuggled out of the DOJ. And that criticism of Angel's site is on my webpage, so if I mention the total revamp I've done, all this is likely to come up.
I'll send the URL for this thread to Angel.