NRA's "A-Rated" Citizen Disarmament Enforcer

Per Larry Rankin:

I just sent the short e-mail to the NRA, see below. Hope some of you will also e-mail them. Bill Brown says he wants a new direction...the question is which direction. Bill Brown told me that anyone in the city should not carry and that he has only given one permit to carry. That person was a federal trapper. I told him there were more wild animals in the city that were far more dangerous. The interview with him went down hill after that. Anyone in Santa Barbara County please forward this to someone you know...that believes in the right for a citizen to protect themselves and their family or friends. Thanks in advance,
www.NRAPVF.org lrr

NRA-PVF,

I received your election alert this evening in the mail and see you are endorsing Bill Brown for Sheriff...and you gave him an "A". I called Bill Brown and talked to him for some time a few weeks ago. He does not believe in citizen having the right to carry with a permit/CCW. I have seen in the past too many "A" given out by the NRA that are not deserved! I know hundreds of gun owners and NRA members in the county and I will let them know your outstanding bad judgment. You really need to talk to local people that are involved and that can ask tuff question to the folks running for office or change the questionnaire or have the simple understanding that there are other letters besides "F" and "A".
Regards, Larry R. Rankin
Past S.B.NRA President the grass roots group for two years...many years ago

Bill Brown said to me when I interviewed him on the phone, that he does not believe any citizen living in the city should have the right to carry a gun. He does believe that people out in the rural areas that really need one should have one...if they can REALLY prove to him it is needed. He has only allowed one and that was a federal trapper that could not carry a loaded weapon while traveling in is vehicle.

So he sees owning a gun not as self protection, but for hunting sports. That is the way I see it.

Bill Brown's contact number 805 757 3960

------------------------

I was ready to post this story yesterday, but felt obligated to hold on to it and do my own fact-checking. Not that I don't trust Larry Rankin--I do, completely. I've been corresponding with him for years, and have found him to be a most trustworthy and reliable colleague. But I was also curious as to why NRA would do this.

I left a voice mail on candidate Brown's campaign answering machine, explaining who I was and that I wanted to ask him some questions about his NRA endorsement. At this posting, my call has not been returned.

I called NRA ILA at their "800" number. I explained who I was (also that I'm a Life Member) and that I was calling to speak to the people responsible for giving Mr. Brown an "A rating" and endorsement. The associate gave me the number for California grasssroots. I spoke to the associate there, repeated everything, and he told me all statements to the media needed to go through their office back in Fairfax, and gave me a direct number (I left my number with him anyway, and asked him to pass everything on to NRA state lobbyist Ed Worley, and asked for him to call me back). I called and spoke to a lady at the media office, explained everything a third time, and told her about Mr. Rankin's conversation with Mr. Brown and the fact that he is against private citizens bearing arms. I also told her the results of my scouting around the internet--and finding that Bill Brown supports Jerry Brown for attorney general:

Showing considerable political chops, Brown, a conservative Republican, garnered the endorsement of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly and many key Santa Barbara progressives while managing to convince a majority of California police chiefs to endorse former Democratic governor Jerry Brown --now mayor of Oakland --in his race for Attorney General.

and that Jerry Brown is basing a large part of his campaign on attacking NRA's endorsed candidate, Chuck Poochigian, for his opposition to gun control laws.

She said she'd pass my request on to the people who could answer me, and I let her know I was holding up posting on this, and would be willing to delay it another day if someone would be willing to talk to me. No one returned my call, so here we are.

If anyone authorized to speak for NRA wishes to post a response, I will be happy to post it in its entirety. The same offer goes for the Bill Brown campaign.

In the mean time, we gun owners are presented with yet another example of NRA rating credibility erosion. I won't presume to be able to read the unstated intentions of others, but it's my opinion that silence from ILA-PVF is unacceptable--particularly if they expect us to donate to support their endorsed candidates.

If you agree with me, please pass a link to this post far and wide, and contact NRA yourself to request an explanation.

Larry Rankin just emailed me, and said "I will be surprised if I get a response. If I did or do I had already planned on forwarding it to you."

If so, you'll see it here.

A-Rated Sheriff Bill Brown Denying CCW Renewals

Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown's new policy has been issued and is now being implemented. He is now denying concealed carry permit renewals for permits that had been approved by the previous--and presumably less "gun friendly" sheriff. Larry Rankin, who first clued me in to Sheriff Brown, just received this (click on images to enlarge) :


Additionally, Mr. Rankin advises he was forced to sign the following "under duress," meaning that he was informed his application would not be forwarded to Sheriff Brown for consideration unless and until he had done so:


And here's the thing--Larry says the Sheriff's Department now refuses to give him a copy of the form he signed, providing him instead with a blank. Why would they do that?

This is typical "Only Ones" arrogance, of course. They have their guns, they deny a citizen the right to bear his, and they'll arrest or kill him if he tries and they find out about it. Of course they will do nothing to guarantee the safety of Mr. Rankin and his family, nor assume liability should he or they be harmed or worse in a situation where his having a gun could have prevented an attack.

And what about this?


You'll notice there has been nothing but silence from the people who gave Sheriff Brown an "A" rating during the election--despite several attempts to contact them and an invitation to post their unedited response. I think it's past time NRA's California Grassroots explained why they solicited their membership with a pro-Bill Brown mailer and who knows what other kind of election support, and it's high time they publicly admitted they were wrong and revoked their rating and support. But it's probably easier to just have their apologists dismiss this as more NRA bashing.

I may have time this weekend to scan and post the entire new policy.

Why is NRA Ignoring Santa Barbara Gun Owners?

I've been compiling "testimonials" from Santa Barbara area gun owners concerning their attempts to contact NRA about their A rating and endorsement of anti-gun Sheriff Bill Brown. Note that in some cases, I do not have permission to use full names, but I would be able to produce evidence via emails should I ever be required to do so--plus many of them were copied to NRA reps, and phone records of calls exist.

This will be a long post, but I think you'll get the gist pretty quickly. Also note that I have not edited the original emails for spelling or grammar.

From Larry Rankin:

Just so you know Ed Worley has been contacted about this issue many times, by many people in and out of Santa Barbara. Ed Has not responded to one person! Many have called his office three times. Also your Fairfax office has been contacted by many of the same people, because Ed has not returned there calls. NRA's response...call Ed. I have a Friend who call Ed a least three time and ended up calling Fairfax, he would not take, "call Sacramento", as an answer. After going through four or five people, he found someone that listened and even said they will contact me. He gave them all of my information. I was wise enough not to hold my breath! That was well over three weeks ago.

To be very honest, I do believe the NRA would like this to go a way by not addressing the issue! The only way this will go away at this point...is NOT with just an apology and we will not support Sheriff Bill Brown with an "A" as we did to help him get into office! They were warned by me and by David Codrea about this before he was elected!

Now NRA head quarters needs to call me and I can set up a game plan with them. This needs to be on a conference call, with the group, "Santa Barbara CCW United". Any thing less will not be accessible!

From BL:

R: Ed Worley _ I called and left a message - result: NADA! I called Virginia, was told to call Sacramento, I replied that was useless and the woman in Vir said, "We don't know about that," or words to that effect. What a load of crap.

From Gerhard Paul:

David, i was a paid voting member of the NRA but decided not to renew my membership because of the very same problems we are having now regarding Ed Worley! This is not new from the NRA in regards to giving "A" rating that should be "F".

You can use my name. Gerhard Paul former paid voting member of NRA

From JS:

My confidence in the ability of the NRA to defend the Second Amendment has been sagging for years , while my support of Gun Owners of America has increased . My vote for Sheriff Brown was based strictly upon the NRA recommendation and went against the advice of more informed local citizens!

One can only wonder how the NRA ever came up with its recommendation !! ??

From Jim Berkley:

Larry Rankin forwarded me your request for experiences calling the NRA to report Brown’s “anti” policies.

I was a holder of a CCW permit for 6 years prior to Brown’s election. I received an orange card from the NRA before the election endorsing Brown.

Although nothing changed re my “need” for a permit, Brown did not renew my CCW permit when I came up for renewal in Feb. I met with Brown and he stated allegiance to the NRA and the 2nd amendment, but that he didn’t want people carrying guns. Not sure how you reconcile those two ideas but he didn’t seem to have any trouble with it.

I called the NRA in Fairfax and told them what the situation was. I was told to call the Sacramento office which I did. A receptionist answered the phone and I told her that we had a new Sheriff, Mr Brown, and that he had been endorsed by the NRA and duly elected. The purpose of my call was to notify them that something had gone terribly wrong because he was actively denying existing permit holders and when I got together with him he made it clear that he did not want people carrying guns.

She said that the lobbyist, Ed Worley, would be very interested to hear this and took my number and said he would call back.

Two weeks passed without a return call, so I called the Sacrament office again. I left a message on Worley’s voice mail and also one on Steve Hellsley’s e-mail. Both messages were very nice and basically said you guys need to know what this man is up to so it doesn’t happen again.

It has been over a month since I left those messages.

Hope this helps – feel free to email me or call if you have any questions or need further info.

From RD:

I don’t know why the NRA does not support its members.

They do not return calls and the only people you can find at the NRA is those who will take your money!

From TB:

I wish to add my voice of protest to the NRA's policy of giving high pro-gun ratings to political candidates that have not proved themselves worth of our support.

I can understand how this could happen if a candidate falseifies his response to the NRA questionnaire. But there is no excuse for the NRA's maintaining their support and not informing the voters that the candidate misstated his positions and changing their rating to a a far lower grade.

Sincerely

TB
NRA member

From KD:

David - I recently dissolved my association with both the NRA and FNRA committee. My reason for doing so was the NRA's lack of response to my repeated requests for a return call to discuss Sheriff Brown's position on concealed carry in Santa Barbara County. I can no longer support an organization which, in the light of clear evidence, will not step up and recognize its mistake in endorsing Sheriff Brown. I will neither renew my NRA membership, nor will I assit in FNRA fund raising, until the NRA publicly decries Sheriff Brown's tactics and reassigns an "F" rating, as is
appropriate.

From Steve:

i called worleys office a few minutes ago. the lady i spoke to was very nice, but said she didn't know why he isn't returning calls. she gave me randy kozuch's number. he is director of state and local affairs. worley's boss. the first lady said to go up the chain of command. randy is supposed to call me back.

More from Steve:

I called Ed Worley Tuesday morning. I asked his secretary after stating my business in regards to the above subject, why hasn't or doesn't he return the calls people have asked him for? She said she didn't know why, but I could call HIS boss. Randy Kozuch is the Director of State and Local Affairs, and is a name I had not seen or heard of in my correspondence with Larry . Kozuch's "secretary" said he was out to lunch (approx 1100hrs-I didn't believe her) and would return my call when he came back. I left my number, and have not heard from him.

From PS:

I called the office of the NRA Manager of Governmental Affairs Executive Director Ed Worley 5-15-07 at 9:45 am PST.

I spoke with Intern Dan Reed who is a good 2nd Amendment proponent, and is law student at McGeorge Law School.

I stated that many people whom I know had called his office in the last 2 months and were upset that the NRA had given an A rating to then candidate Bill Brown for Sheriff of Santa Barbara County, CA. He said "This is about Mr. Rankin, right?". I said that many NRA members will not renew, nor will they contribute another penny to the NRA, including life members. I said that everyone whom I know who is informed about the rating, and once Sheriff not renewing Carry Concealed Weapon permits to long time holders, and not providing a questionnaire to then incumbent Sheriff Jim Anderson, is upset and will stay upset about the NRA misleading them. And that those persons will communicate loudly and clearly to all their friends, family and co workers and tell them to re-direct the funds they had given the NRA for years, to GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, JPFO and other actually pro-gun organizations with backbone and accountability.

Dan said that he'd been there 5 months 3 days a week and that all he could do was make notes in the call log and forward the message to Ed Worley. I said that many people of my acquaintance had called Ed already, multiple times, and that NO ONE had been called back by Ed Worley. Dan said that he had the call log, and "only a couple" of people had called, which I know personally to be untrue. The call log may not have been entered to reflect the calls, but people have told me they've called. I told Dan that people had also called Fairfax to complain, and been promised return calls, and again no one had ever been called back, in spite of repeated calls (as many as 4 from the same person within a 2 week period). Dan told me that it concerned him to hear people disgruntled and not supporting the NRA. He said again that all he could do was forward the subject and message of the call to Ed Worley. I told him to leave the NRA and get a position at an organization that had integrity.

Dan said I could also call Fairfax, which I did, immediately. I spoke with a mature sounding woman who didn't provide her name. I relayed the same story and message. She said that candidates must request a questionnaire, and that I should call the lobbyist (Ed Worley) in charge of the my area. I said that I just had, and that Ed Worley hasn't returned any of many calls from many people, and in fact has been completely uncooperative, unresponsive, irresponsible and people feel totally insulted. I then stated that the same people had called her office (the office of Chris Cox) and been promised return calls, and that calls would be made to Larry Rankin, and those people provided his phone number, and called back and been re-promised and again, no calls returned to them or calls to Larry Rankin.
She said that she'd pass on the message to Chris Cox.

From WT:

I had already decided not to donate this year as well as not contribute dues to the Golden Eagles. No one at the NRA acknowledged my letters (to three different officers) that were sent in April.

Too bad the principals stated by the NRA are not followed. For any years they have been at the forefront defending the rights of gun owners, but have apparently become an unwieldy bureaucracy.

It's evident the powers that be are hoping this will go away. Too bad.

It can't--not until the political "experts" come clean with why they misled their members on Brown's stance on their right to keep and bear arms, and come up with some way of ensuring they deserve credibility on future ratings and endorsements.

One thing is for sure--ignoring all these requests is no way to endear grassroots supporters to an organization that purports to represent their interests.

There will be a "Friends of NRA" dinner on June 2. Mr. Rankin is contacting Santa Barbara gun owners to boycott the event and sponsors not to donate to it. It's a shame it's come down to this, but it's also understandable. I'll keep an eye on this and report any developments that merit attention.

One final word: I also tried contacting NRA before my first post on this matter, and got the same runaround and lack of response as the people above. I repeat the offer I made last October:

If anyone authorized to speak for NRA wishes to post a response, I will be happy to post it in its entirety.

UPDATE:

Well, we got somebody's attention (click to enlarge)...



Come on out fellas. Talk to us.

De Facto Carry Ban in Santa Barbara County

By Larry R. Rankin, Santa Barbara, California

Life member NRA, Life member GOA, Life member JPFO, Life member California Rifle and Pistol Association, Life member Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Past President of the Grassroots, NRA members’ council, Chairman of the First Friends of NRA dinner in Santa Barbara, Current Chairman of the California American Pistol and Rifle Association for the County of Santa Barbara.

I am to this day licensed to carry a loaded weapon in all of the states below:

1) Alabama, 2) Alaska, 3) Arizona, 4) Arkansas, 5) Colorado, 6) Delaware, 7) Florida, 8) Georgia, 9) Idaho, 10) Indiana, 11) Kentucky, 12) Louisiana, 13) Michigan, 14) Minnesota, 15) Mississippi, 16) Missouri, 17) Montana, 18) Nevada, 19) New Hampshire, 20) New Mexico, 21) North Carolina, 22) North Dakota, 23) Ohio, 24) Oklahoma, 25) Pennsylvania, 26) South Dakota, 27) Tennessee, 28) Texas, 29) Utah, 30) Vermont, 31) Virginia, 32) Washington and 33) Wyoming

You might not like what Sheriff Bill Brown of Santa Barbara County has to say, but he is honest and direct about it. Which makes you wonder why the NRA gave a “A” rating to a man who makes it clear he's proud that he has given out only three concealed carry permits in his many years of service. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Sheriff Brown claims to be a life member of the NRA. Perhaps it is because Sheriff Brown is bright, well spoken and endowed with a certain measure of conceit that so often seems to be the inevitable attribute of a successful politician. It seems that there is something about a successful politician that the NRA finds hard to resist.

When I met with Sheriff Brown this March the 9th, to appeal my denial of my application of my active gun permit that I have had for over ten years (unsuccessfully) he was diplomatic enough to hear me out. He then very clearly and unambiguously laid out a policy of a de facto concealed carry ban in Santa Barbara County. A policy that does not recognize the right of self defense. A policy based on the model of a sovereign who knows what is best for his subjects, not a public servant elected to protect the rights of the citizens who elected him. A policy reminiscent of King George's government that was rejected by our founding fathers, not the constitutional model of government they bequeathed to us. A policy that supports the continued efforts to redefine the Second Amendment in sporting terms rather than in terms of a right of defense of self and property. And finally, if the NRA lawyers are listening, a policy that violates California law on concealed carry, which at least acknowledges that there might be someone qualified to receive a concealed carry permit other than persons associated with law enforcement. While California was careful enough not to craft an outright de jure ban on concealed carry, Sheriff Brown's policy is a ban as a matter of fact, if not of law.

Twenty years ago I might have understood how Sheriff Brown can state "I am a Life member of the NRA, a hunter, a gun collector and we have enough laws, without creating new ones" and yet prohibit concealed carry. But many years of data are available today from states that have allowed widespread concealed carry. Data that show a reduction of crime. Data that show that concealed carry holders are overwhelmingly safe and law abiding. These are facts especially important to the discharge of his duties as Sheriff. Facts that he should have made an effort to investigate before adopting a concealed carry policy. Facts that any NRA member knows. To continue a policy that he has followed for many years with no consideration of contemporary evidence is to demonstrate an arbitrary and capricious exercise of his power as Sheriff.

If enough sheriffs abuse California's concealed carry law in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the argument can be made that California's concealed carry law violates either the California of Federal constitutions. Is the NRA counting?

There is, additionally, another legal reform that the NRA should champion. One concern Sheriff Brown identified, and I have heard this from other sheriffs, is fear of personal legal liability if someone with a concealed carry permit commits a crime with the permitted weapon. Law enforcement is second only to the teachers' unions in political influence in the California legislature. Would not California law enforcement almost unanimously support the NRA were it to lobby for a law protecting sheriffs and police chiefs from liability for issuing concealed carry permits? Would you issue CCWs if it meant you might lose your job, your house, your kids' college money, and a lifetime of savings? If it meant declaring bankruptcy to avoid having a multi million dollar verdict haunting you for the rest of your life?

Sheriff Brown is no Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death"). But then how many of us are? We have to work with the men and women we have as law enforcement leaders. If the NRA were to lobby for the legal protection California police and sheriffs' needs, perhaps they might not be afraid to take an honest look at success other states have had with concealed carry.

How About Some Straight Answers (For a Change)?

My friends in Santa Barbara got another reply from NRA in response to why the Association endorsed Bill Brown for sheriff:

Thank you for your response. When a candidate does not return a questionnaire, we do assume that it is because they are hostile to gun rights. There is always a possibility the candidate did not receive the questionnaire or forgot to return it. But in Sheriff Anderson's case, according to individuals who talked to him and know him, he was aware that he had not returned the questionnaire and he still never did return it.

Sincerely,

Erik Eckberg

NRA-ILA

Here's what I sent back:

I believe the correct question is not why Anderson was unrated. That’s a diversion from the real issue in this race. I would like someone from NRA HQ to go on record about what Bill Brown did, said and promised to receive an A rating. This nebulous “Bill Brown has worked with the NRA to defeat anti-gun legislation at the State Capitol” does not tell me why Brown deserves an A, AND AN ENDORSEMENT, which in anybody’s book ought to mean he’s a gun rights leader.

What bills did he help defeat? Specifically.

What work did he do for NRA to help defeat these bills? Give details.

What is Brown’s position on the Second Amendment and why won’t he state it for the record?

What is Brown’s position on “assault weapons”?

What is Brown’s position on concealed carry?

What is Brown’s position on .50 caliber rifles?

How does Brown define the militia?

Why did Brown endorse Gov. Moonbeam, who made gun control ads a centerpiece of his campaign?

What does Brown think “shall not be infringed” means?

People are catching on to NRA HQ duplicity. As a life member, I am sick of arrogant staffers equivocating, weasel-wording, avoiding giving direct answers to direct questions. I am sick of phony ratings. I am sick of slick talking.

How about a “for the record” reply to each of my specific concerns, Mr. Eckberg?

And when we’re done with Brown, we can move on to Shane Sklar and Judy Topinka.

I will, of course, post any response I get, unedited.

"Bill Brown-Asked and Answered"

I received the following forwarded email reply by NRA-ILA regarding Bill Brown from a friend in Santa Barbara:

Thank you for your email. Our lobbyist has carefully evaluated Bill Brown's stand on the Second Amendment. In fact Bill Brown has worked with the NRA to defeat anti-gun legislation at the State Capitol. As for his opponent Sheriff Anderson, he never returned the questionnaire that the NRA-PVF sent to him. We assume that is because he is hostile to gun rights.

Well, NRA's lobbyist wouldn't return my call on the matter, nor would their PR department. Incidentally, what do they mean by "Brown...worked with the NRA...at the State Capitol"?

Which bills? What did he actually do?

As for Anderson not returning a questionnaire, the implication is that Brown did.

Did he? Why won't NRA tell us how he responded?

Why won't NRA tell its voting members, who are being asked to support Brown, what his stances are on specific issues, such as concealed carry, the semiauto ban, the .50 ban, and other "anti-gun legislation"?

Why should we believe that Bill Brown's A-rating is a credible assessment of his "stand on the Second Amendment," when NRA is deliberately withholding this information, and refuses to explain Brown's documented position on the bearing of arms:

"With regard to CCWs, I don't believe in a blanket policy, i.e. I feel that Sheriffs and Police Chiefs need to have and should exercise discretion in issuing CCWs. Circumstances vary. What works in a rural setting may not be appropriate in an urbanized area. I would continue my current policy, which is to issue CCWs sparingly if there is a valid reason (such as a credible threat against life, requirement due to profession, or similar circumstance)."

This is what it takes to get an "A", and these people only gave Ron Paul a "B"?

Don't look for these questions to be answered. But do look at that evasion when assessing the credibility of NRA political ratings.

Bill Brown as Covered by the Professionals

To some local residents' dismay, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown doesn't believe the public is made safer by permitting more people to carry loaded and concealed weapons.

And he cites a 2005 handgun murder that climaxed a road-rage incident in Buellton as evidence of why he feels that way...

“I don't subscribe to the theory that it's safer in public if you have large numbers of armed people running around,” Brown added during an interview at his Sheriff's Department office near Goleta.

Right. As I've demonstrated time and again, we're just not as stable and trustworthy as Brown and his "Only Ones."

Nice to see the "authorized journalists" are finally getting around to noticing something we mere bloggers have been covering for over half a year now. Still, it's funny how the primary issue that makes this story unique--NRA's "A" rating and endorsement of an anti-gun sheriff who doesn't believe armed citizens make society safer-- apparently isn't considered "newsworthy."

There's also an important clarification to make about Larry Rankin, who the reporter does mention. Per Larry:

Just for your information, they said, I "could not be reached for further comment," they did not try to contact me or I would have given them some good feedback about Sheriff Brown and my reasons.

I'm working on a follow-up right now--it will feature statements from Santa Barbara gun owners and NRA members who have contacted NRA on this matter and been blown off. Their silence on this and refusal to explain themselves and condemn Brown's stance is simply unacceptable. But count on the stonewalling to continue because only myself and a handful of others give a damn enough to demand answers. Which means the ratings charade will continue.

Activists Boycott Santa Barbara FONRA Over Brown

From Larry Rankin:

This is a letter I sent out and we used while calling many sponsors that donated to the Santa Barbara Friends of NRA last year. We are boycotting the dinner...the NRA needs to understand that when they hurt us, we can hurt them back. I am a life member of the NRA, I fostered and built the foundation for the very first Friends of NRA dinner in Santa Barbara and I realize many will say that the Friends of NRA is different than ILA...they need to understand that the NRA, is the NRA, is the NRA and that they are accountable for their actions, or lack of!

We are requesting that you do not donate or be a sponsor or attend the Friends of the NRA banquet this year. The reason is that the NRA helped get Sheriff Bill Brown elected. They knew that he was anti gun because I personally contacted them well before election day, as did David Codrea, who is a writer for, "The War on Guns." The NRA did not bother to return either one of our calls. We know that the reason is that they deliberately got him elected knowing that he wasn't the most pro- gun candidate.

Many people have called the NRA in Sacramento and Fairfax, VA, from Santa Barbara area about this issue and they have not returned anyone's calls. Sheriff Bill Brown has not renewed the majority of CCW holders in Santa Barbara County since becoming Sheriff. We want to make a statement with the NRA that the Santa Barbara community of gun owners and 2nd Amendment patriots can make a difference, with our votes and our dollars. If people go to the Friends of the NRA dinner, the NRA will feel that they do not have to be accountable.

We have stopped a very high percentage of sponsors and members from going to the NRA dinner by making these calls and letting them know the truth. They will see the lowest count, in Santa Barbara's NRA dinner history. We will give you a count after the dinner June 2nd, 2007.

Update: The dinner took place as scheduled on June 2nd, 2007. They had 90 people that paid to show up at the Friends of NRA fundraiser. Many called in to say they could not come or were no-shows. Seventy (70) people did show and a few came in and purchased tickets at the door. They had around 25 free tickets which they gave out and figured they had a total of around 100. The Elk's Club had a minimum of 125 dinners. They had no real bidding in the auction. Sam Neeley, the auctioneer, made a speech about the sheriff and how many were unhappy with what is was doing (not about the NRA helping cause the problem) and the people should support the NRA and not stay away from these events by boycotting them because it only hurts you. This of course is self-serving for him because he did not make much money on the auction.

The NRA had a check written to them at the end of the event for $2,800. Anyone that knows about fundraisers know that is like breaking even.

It was said that many were really ticked off at me for starting the boycott and because they found out we had called many past patriots of the function. I will say, I am proud of what I did and I understand many of them can not see out of the box. I will stand behind my action with my head up high! I will boycott the event next year if the NRA does not call and do what they should have done many months ago. That will not be, "I am sorry", it will be a lot more involved. Keeping that under hat for how. As of today, June 7, 2007, we have not been contacted by the NRA and we know they are well aware of what they have done to us. They even checked out the posting on "The War on Guns" website.

I want to thank each and every one of you that supported us on this very important issue!

With warmest appreciation,

Larry R. Rankin

Sounding Off on Bill Brown

My philosophy is to issue CCWs sparingly, according to our policy, if there is a valid reason.

And you're the sole arbiter of what's valid, right, Sheriff?

This is the text version of the "web paper" story I linked to earlier.

I registered and added this comment:

I guess the real question here–and it flat out baffles me that no one from the media has looked into this–is why did NRA endorse Brown for sheriff and give him their coveted “A” rating, which is supposed to be reserved for 2nd Amendment champions? Why did they mail postcards to their members and supporters informing them of this? Why did they encourage their members to support Brown? How many members donated time and money to the Brown campaign based on this endorsement? How many voted for Brown and encouraged their gun owner friends to do so as well?

And most importantly, now that Brown’s philosophy has been revealed in practice (and to my knowledge, he never hid it to begin with or changed positions after elected–in other words, he has always been publicly pretty consistent in his opposition to concealed carry), why is NRA now silent on this, ignoring long time members who ask them to explain themselves?

I’d like to attribute this to a political mistake, but anyone with just a little knowledge about the Association’s past practices can tell you this is not the first time “A” ratings have been awarded to undeserving candidates–and not the first time questions about this practice have been ignored.

So how about it, Daily Sound–are you going to call NRA and ask them for the record why they endorsed Brown? If not, why not?

Feel free to add your own comments to their site--maybe if enough people show interest and lead them by the nose to a story, the "authorized journalists" will ask a pointed question or two.

More on Bill Brown

[Via Larry Rankin and Russ Howard]

Bill Brown Update: "Suspended"

Larry Rankin, passes on inside information that at least one person has dropped his CCW course in Santa Barbara because he was told the sheriff's department will not be issuing any more permits. Apparently, Sheriff Brown is also "considering" not renewing existing permits.

I wrote to the department to inquire and got this reply from their Office of Internal Affairs:

I've received your e-mail request concerning the renewal and application process relating to Conceal Weapons Permits. Normally I would forward you a packet containing all of the information you requested or call you and answer any questions you might have regarding this matter. However, a new Sheriff was recently elected and took office two weeks ago and he is in the process of reviewing the Department policy to evaluate what, if any changes he will be make to ensure that liability is kept to a minimum when dealing with Concealed Weapon's Permits. Until that time, the current policy is suspended. Hopefully, I can address this with a more definitive answer sometime at the end of February of 2007 after the Sheriff has had time to complete his revisions.

Certainly sounds like an "A" rating to me...

I will, of course, follow up on this "at the end of February."

[More on Bill Brown]

Bill Brown Update

No "incompetence" issue. The issue is honesty and "transparency", which I believe is the term Brown is promising to bring to the Sheriff's Department.

The "story" is that Brown has gotten the NRA PAC endorsement and I've personally held that bright orange mailer touting Brown'’s 'A'” rating (meaning pro-gun stance). Brown either embraces the endorsement or runs from it, which is it?

We all know what a political powerhouse that NRA is; AND THEY DO NOT GIVE ENDORSEMENTS TO ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS.

Brown had to seek out the NRA endorsement to get it and now you and his other supporters are running from it and hiding it from the majority of voters. When is it going to be on his website? Or is it?

See reader comments at The Santa Barbara Independent, particularly the exchange between anti-gunner Dian Davis and Brown apologist Misleading Anderson supporters watch, who tries to dismiss things as "hearsay".

That's really something, when the gungrabber is the one telling the truth.

In other developments, someone at NRAHQ has been doing research on my name:



Guys, it's OK. You can come out and approach me directly. I won't bite. All I want to do is ask you a question--and, of course, get a straight answer--for the record.

The question has also been posed over at Calguns Forums. There's no answer, but there is an excuse.

Here's the thing. In the grand scheme of things, I really couldn't give a rat's behind about who Santa Barbarans elect as sheriff. This is bigger. This is about the integrity of NRA ratings--their trustworthiness as a whole. If this is the practice in one locale, how can ratings in others be trusted? If we're being asked to expend financial and political resources on a candidate, we deserve to know the truth. And it's not like the question hasn't come up before. Again and again.

This is a build-up to something I'm working on now, something bigger than a local election. More to follow in the next few days...

Related posts:

NRA's "A-Rated" Citizen Disarmament Enforcer

What Can Brown Do to You? (The Silence is Deafening)

Bill Brown: Still Elitist After All These Years

Long time WarOnGuns readers are familiar with the ongoing saga of Santa Barbara, CA Sheriff Bill Brown.

He's still up to his old tricks.

From on-the-scene correspondent Gerhard Paul:

Yeah, you're a very responsible and upstanding citizen. But not being one of my specially trained "Only Ones," or fitting one of my other arbitrary categories for super citizen status, I just don't trust you. So I've decided to make your choice on whether or not your life is worth protecting for you.

It's not.

But don't take it personally. And I hope you still think highly of me and my department, even though we will ruin your life big time if we catch you disobeying me.

And despite repeated attempts over the course of many months by several individuals to get a straight answer, hell, any answer, there's still no explanation for how and why this happened:


"He stated to me that he is an NRA member," Mr. Paul, a former eight-year CCW holder reported after his meeting with the sheriff on why his permit renewal was denied.

Bummer. But look at the bright side--now that you know him, maybe you can sit at his table at a FONRA dinner some time...

The Bill Brown Runaround

From Larry Rankin via email to NRAHQ:

Just so you know Ed Worley has been contacted about this issue many times, by many people in and out of Santa Barbara. Ed has not responded to one person! Many have called his office three times. Also your Fairfax office has been contacted by many of the same people, because Ed has not returned their calls. NRA's response...call Ed. I have a friend who called Ed at least three time and ended up calling Fairfax--he would not take "call Sacramento" as an answer. After going through four or five people, he found someone that listened and even said they will contact me. He gave them all of my information. I was wise enough not to hold my breath! That was well over three weeks ago.

Sounds like the same thing that happened to me when I first began writing about this. I called NRA HQ, was referred to Sacramento and they referred me to NRA's "Media Office." They're counting on not enough members giving a damn about giving undeserved "A" ratings and endorsements, and I suspect they're probably right--which essentially gives them a green light to continue the practice.

[More on Sheriff Bill Brown]

The Sound and the Fury

The Sound:


The Fury:



Per Larry Rankin:

This newspaper reporter was against citizens' having guns rights. I know because I asked him if he was against guns and he quickly said, YES, and than caught himself.

This is a good article to use against the NRA A rating program. I have had several people call Ed Worley, NRA/ILA rep in Sacramento, more than one time and as many as three. To this day he has not returned one call!

This article says a lot. The best part is when he [Bill Brown] says in a roundabout way that the other sheriffs gave out too many. So he is saying that Sheriff Jim Anderson was a lot more pro-gun than he.

I am happy with this article because it shows the new direction that Bill Brown has taken us! Thank you NRA for helping get such an anti-gun sheriff elected!

[Also via GP]

(As an aside, I'd like to know what idiot at The Santa Barbara Daily Sound thought "the Web Paper experience" was a good way to do anything except keep people from reading the damned paper on the Web.--DC)

Distrust and Verify

The nation’s most respected Sportsmen association has endorsed Senator Emmett Hanger on his re-election campaign and for the June 12th primary this coming Tuesday...

The NRA Political Victory Fund has publicly endorsed Hanger and is encouraging all its members to vote June 12 to return Hanger to the Virginia Senate.

Why? What does Hanger really believe about gun ownership and use rights?

From his website:

Gun Rights

As a rural legislator, I have long been a leading advocate for the protection of 2nd Amendment rights.

From consistently opposing legislation intended to chip away at gun owner rights, to patroning key legislation to afford statewide protection of this constitutional right, I am regarded as a leader in the Senate on this issue.

I am proud of my A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and have a clear record of consistency on this issue over the years. I also am pleased to be a Republican co-chair of the Sportsman Caucus in the General Assembly.

I don't see much in terms of specifics here. And the problem is, what with the Sheriff Bill Brown 'A' rating endorsement fiasco-- and NRA's refusal to address numerous, oftentimes multiple sustained efforts by members (for months) to find out how that happened and what's to prevent it from happening again-- the Association has created conditions where its credibility on political endorsements is-- and should be-- questioned.

Candidly, why should we trust people who have let us down? Do we accept their endorsement on blind faith, or do we maybe peel back a few layers and examine things a bit more closely?

We might ask why, for instance, the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition gave Hanger a "C minus".

We might ask why he ignored a 2003 Virginia Citizens Defense League survey altogether. We might also ask why Hanger's independent (libertarian) challenger in the November 2007 election Arin Sime, issued a press release stating "that he agrees with the VCDL’s position stating that SB827 would greatly burden gun sellers and is a step in the wrong direction for second amendment rights."

And what about Hanger's Republican challenger for the June 12 primary, Scott Sayre? Apparently, gun rights aren't important enough to list on his "Issues" page (interesting he posted a Virginia Tech memorial black ribbon logo--I wonder what his solution for preventing future massacres would be?). A Google search for the terms "Scott Sayre" + gun doesn't give us much insight, either, although there is a link to a VCDL post, indicating that as of a few weeks ago, he had not returned their questionnaire. It doesn't look like he's all that interested. But he is, according to a support blog, "an avid turkey hunter," for what it's worth.

And what about Democrat candidate David Cox? Perhaps it's not fair to make assumptions based on the fact that he's an Episcopal priest, but I just can't find anything about his position, or even how to ask him--searching for his name doesn't result in any readily-accessible campaign website or blog.

Look, I don't mean to malign Sen. Hanger--I really don't know that much about him, and what I do see is vague. He may be a fine politician and the best hope for Virginia gun owners. But what I know--from bitter experience--is not to automatically accept NRA ratings as the final word. And since Mr. Sime looks very good on RKBA, there ought to be a more credible way to determine who will best serve the interests of Virginia gun owners.

There is. I developed this political questionnaire some years back. It would be interesting to see if any of these candidates would respond, and if so, how:

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans, and that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms from being infringed?

2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state? How?

3. Who are the Constitutional militia?

4. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Please share as many as you can think of.

5. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider unconstitutional.

6. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?

7. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?

8. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?

9. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?

10. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?

11. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?

13. If brief clarification is requested for any of your answers, will you provide it?

I'll send a link to this post to both campaigns, and report back on any responses or lack thereof...meanwhile, if anyone has knowledge to share about any of these candidates, feel free to educate us in the "Comments" section to this post.

UPDATE:

Good Guys with Guns

The Santa Barbara shooter never would have been able to inflict as much carnage on innocent students if more people were LEGALLY carrying guns ... so says ex-NFL star Lito Sheppard. [More]

After all, it was men with guns who prompted the monster to flee, crash and shoot himself.

I see some guy who self-identifies as a gun owner/NRA member who has taken it on himself to play naysayer and show everyone his big "I believe in the Second Amendment but" and list all the reasons why you or I would "probably cause... more casualties among innocent bystanders."

Yeah, right, a concealed carrier might not have made a difference. Then again he might have. You don't know, but you're parroting the antis, and resorting to a "drunk Bubbas" slur, makes me wonder just who you really are.

The point is, it's not Sheriff Bill Brown's choice to make.

Two from Workman

• Indicted non-candidate Yee polls 3rd in California race: Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about the quality of moron that elects these types?
• ‘Gun control not the answer,’ says law enforcement magazine editor: Unfortunately, the editor neglects to mention RKBA is a big part of the answer--something re-elected by a landslide Sheriff Bill Brown will not allow.

New WarOnGuns Poll: The Ratings Game

Over the past months we've been discussing Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown, who is revoking previously-issued CCW permits despite being endorsed and given an "A" rating by NRA-PVF.

I generally avoid two-question polls, but in this case, a pretty direct question is involved that doesn't require nuanced response choices. See the left margin and take the new poll.

Here are the results of last week's poll (click on image to enlarge). Those of you who pledged to get a copy of "In Search of the Second Amendment": what's keeping you? Here's a link to order it. Go. Those who have no intention of doing so, I don't get it, but sadly, I'm not surprised.

All the News Santa Barbara Gun Owners Need

There are no worries of Santa Barbara gun owners finding out about Sheriff Bill Brown's anti-gun extremism.

Just check the news feed and see for yourself.

As far as most will ever know, the guy is OK. And they'll reelect him.

‘C’ grade for anti-gun Sheriff Brown by Calif. gun group should be an ‘F’

Because even though it’s not a good grade, a “C” is a passing one. Santa Barbara gun owners who don’t know any better will vote accordingly, so what CRPA will end up doing, after seeing evidence of Brown’s betrayals of his earlier “A,” and after meeting with NRA members he’s shafted, is help Bill Brown get reelected. The rating has the effect of being a de facto endorsement with plausible deniability and without any of the risks. [More]

I expect today’s Gun Rights Examiner report is going to anger no shortage of people, including some gun owners. That’s too bad. The documented build-up to this has been years in the making, and there’s no excuse to sit on hands and allow this man to remain in power.