Tuesday, October 31, 2006

CRPA's Line in the Sand


There is none.

Yeah, I know--Phil Angelides will really really ban guns.

And yeah, I know, Arnold did refuse to sign some gun bills.

All of those bills collectively did not have the significance of his signing into law the ban on .50 caliber rifles, or his approving a law that disarms citizens who have not been convicted of any crime--but have merely been accused by someone with a motive to hurt them.



And here's the thing. He warned us.

He told us "Gun control should be stiffer," that he supported the Brady Bill, favored the "assault weapons" ban and "closing the loophole of the gun shows." He endorsed "trigger lock laws," and pledged to sign legislation requiring gun owners to pass a state-defined test in order to purchase a handgun, requiring load indicators or magazine safety disconnects on semiauto handguns manufactured after 2006, and banning .50 caliber rifles.

Some of us (OK, me) watched in frustration as warnings went unheeded and most major gun groups stayed silent during the recall that resulted in Arnold's elevation to power, one even claiming that he was secretly pro-gun and had given some groups money. "Good size chunks" of it.

The truth is, Californians have no candidate who is pro-rkba who has a chance of winning. To suggest otherwise, to endorse a known gungrabber, is an insult to gun owners.

Why not just tell us the truth?

I wouldn't have a problem with CRPA telling its members that Angelides will be more active and hostile against us than Arnold, and to weigh that fact in their decision making. That would be an honest assessment, and if people chose to vote defensively, that would at least be an informed choice.

But to endorse him?

The best we can hope for this election is to put Tom McClintock within a heartbeat of the post, and I wonder how many of you California gun owners reading this have sent a contribution to his campaign. I have. He really needs it. That's the endorsement message we should be hearing from our "leaders."

But it looks like CRPA will end up having it both ways. Their "recommended" candidate can ban the guns, and their lawyer can provide the escort service to turn 'em in.

[Thanks to Dave L for sending me the brochure, and to John S for sending me a picture of the endorsement page.]

1 comment:

E. David Quammen said...

Forced to vote based upon the degree of usurpation and tyranny the candidate stands for?

Does anyone remember, that we the people ARE the majority? That these usurping, greedy tyrants number in the thousands, and We in the MILLIONS?

That an unconstitutional law - is NO LAW? It is null and void the moment it is passed? That it doesn't require 9 feces-flinging monkeys to interpret OUR Constitution? That is the intent of a written Constitution - that ALL may read and understand?

When it comes to Federal Law, (Constitution), it takes precedence over local or state law?

Those ARE the FACTS, Jack. Anyone that says any different, only betrays themselves as ignorant or dishonest....