What is PAFOA doing to help PA gun laws?

[Brick]

Originally Posted by RoyJackson

Now, can Kim get information on when other bills will be coming up for public comment? I'm specifically asking about the "Assault Rifle" ban.

House and Senate Committee Meetings and Public Hearings are scheduled in advance.

Go to the Pa. General Assembly website, select Session Information and under "House" or "Senate" header select "Committee Meeting Schedule".

[ironhorse]

I want to say thank you danp , for this web sight. I have learned a tremendous amount of info since I've joined early this year. Laws that help me make realistic decisions about my personnel safety. Great alternatives for the same as well. I have learned what everyone is complaining about( Or scared of) concerning gun control. And by talking and reading posts from the other members, I have learned to form different opinions about gun owners myself. The people on this web sight are a great bunch. Very helpful. And they want to make sure you have the RIGHT info, for your needs.
That being said, Maybe we all should get a little more involved . I guess I am speaking mainly to myself. (But if that might apply to you,Maybe it's time to take the next step). But anyway, Through the Pafoa and the forum's we are better educated and are more able to communicate our concerns, as well as the concerns of others to our public officials..


Thanks Danp for spending so much of your personal time here.

[RoyJackson]

Originally Posted by Brick

House and Senate Committee Meetings and Public Hearings are scheduled in advance.

Go to the Pa. General Assembly website, select Session Information and under "House" or "Senate" header select "Committee Meeting Schedule".

Thanks, Brick!

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by danp

This is a very important point that I think a lot of people don't get. Sure we all want to get rid of 922(o), get Alaska-style carry, remove the sporting purposes clauses, etc. The reality of the situation is attempting to do so would cost immense amounts of political capital and would probably fail in the current political climate. Sure it would make people feel good because they tried, but ultimately they wasted resources, possibly burned people, and got nothing accomplished.

But therein lies the rub, we don't all want those things, not by a long shot. There are a lot of gun owners that don't want those things, and I think we all know that. But, there are some of our so-called activist groups that don't want it and wouldn't push for it even if their entire membership was demanding it. There are also a great deal of the so-called pro-RKBA politicians that don't want it and would oppose it if you managed to introduce a bill for it.

That creates a double-edged sword, because yes, it would likely burn a lot of capital and it would probably fail, but you have to ask yourselves if we're really being served by avoiding that. For every fake pro-gun politician that gets endorsed, supported or protected by gun rights groups, that's one more slot that will not occupy a seriously pro-gun ally. If the fictitious PAGRG supported Joe Schmoe because he was somewhat pro-gun in that he'd support limited advancements and measures to further the RKBA, and by supporting him, the PAGRG gave run of the mill gun owners the impression that he was the best thing since the founding fathers, gun owners would likely continue to support him, leaving no room for a real RKBA candidate that would support the “extreme” measures that you noted above. In that case, the gun rights advocate group has a split loyalty out of necessity; half of their job is to lobby for gun owners, the other half is to protect their assets and lobby us for the politicians in upholding their image as RKBA patron saints. And this does happen, whether people would prefer to deny it or attack those of us that would say it.

In effect, this creates the very climate that ensures that mostly small and non-radical steps can be taken. This isn't some wild-eyed conspiracy theory, this is access-oriented politics 101. When you get some of these politicos relaxed and thinking that they're talking amongst their protectors or friends, you'd be amazed at what they admit to not having any intention to support. The same goes with many RKBA groups in many states.

Furthermore, the more radical approaches that some gun owners favor can and do work in other states. There are some state level grass roots organizations that are hardliners and accomplish a lot. I remember when the VCDL was considered radical extremists that make gun owners looks bad and whose actions will lead to stricter gun laws in Virginia. Now, contrast that sentiment with the current situation in Virginia. They're not any less free, in fact, their RKBA constituency is a force to be reckoned with when the fires are lit underneath them.

The most important aspect of any "conflict" is to identify the battles you can win, and focus on them. This is what gun rights advocates have been doing for years and I think it is a very effective strategy.

But there will always be disagreement on what battles can be won and which are abandoned for political expediency. It is unwise to dismiss those asking for more or questioning current strategies. Just because that's how it's been done doesn't mean that's how it should be done.

Case in point, the relation between concealed carry laws and stand your ground laws. Before concealed carry became popular and most people realized that it wasn't going to result in OK-Corral-style shootouts in the streets, the idea of stand-your-ground-laws probably would have been unheard of and stood no chance of going anywhere. But once we worked on concealed carry, the landscape changed and provided new opportunities.

Since you brought up “stand your ground laws”, I'll use Florida as an example. They enacted their current concealed carry system in 1985 IIRC, and it was not until 2005 that stand your ground went into effect. It's a little loose to offer that they are directly related in terms of how popular concealed carry was or is. Concealed carry had been widely popular in Florida for the better part of the 20 years between it's establishment and the stand your ground law. If you were thinking more nationally, I'd submit that concealed carry did not prosper across this nation in a flash, some of the right to carry situations are very old, some are relatively new. While changes to the laws have been made along the way, concealed carry has been popular for longer than many gun owners might realize.

Every step in this process is a building block, by focusing on the small battles we can win, we build a strong foundation on which we can continue.

Always be aware of the person who screams for massive change and expects to get it instantly. In my experience those people (in any field be it school, work, etc.) will usually end up causing more trouble than they will contribute to a positive goal.

I'd offer that caution should be employed when thinking in generalities such as this. Again, the question of what battles can be won is one of opinion and analysis, and as long as the analysis is sound, differing opinions will all have merit. Anyone that expects a certain result instantly is probably a little foolish, but pushing for “massive change” or some measure even only slightly more radical than the status quo should not be used as cause to simply disqualify the person making the case; that is the recipe for stagnation and delusions of self-importance.

Case in point, there are some RKBA activists that think they're more important than the people. Without dropping names and starting a war, I can directly quote one of them in a written discussion where I asked, “Okay, but what about the people? I mean, what role do we have if organizations such as yours take it upon themselves to make all the decisions for us because, as you said, we don't know how politics work and we don't know the law?”, “I'm out there every day fighting the good fight. What I do is important, the people don't need to know what goes on because they don't care and won't understand it. The people are unimportant, I represent them, what [we] do is what gets things done, not the people”.

And I didn't find the above to be particularly offensive, only because it's true. Under the current system of the way things are, that is indeed how it is in this state, but to summarily dismiss any alternative for fear of losing what we already have is a self-fulfilling prophecy; there is nothing better because you'll never get anything better, not necessarily the other way around.

Just some food for thought.

[danp]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

But therein lies the rub, we don't all want those things, not by a long shot. There are a lot of gun owners that don't want those things, and I think we all know that.

Of course not, and it is our job to educate them as to why they should. If anything it should be very easy compared to convincing an anti-gunner. But at the same time it is important not to confuse someone who simply does not support repealing 922(o) with someone who would actively prevent it. While neither of those things are good, I'll take a wimpy pro-gunner over an anti-gunner any day until they start actively working against us.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

But, there are some of our so-called activist groups that don't want it and wouldn't push for it even if their entire membership was demanding it.

I can't speak for other groups obviously, but I seriously doubt that if the political climate was right for some of the more pie-in-the-sky changes we'd like to make, they would work against it.

Additionally, you should never confuse the will of the masses with what can actually happen or what is a good idea. At some point people have to defer to the expertise of the organizations that they support, or they need to do it themselves (which is fine, more power to them).

Originally Posted by NineseveN

There are also a great deal of the so-called pro-RKBA politicians that don't want it and would oppose it if you managed to introduce a bill for it.

A pro-gun politician who gets voted out of office for supporting a bill that simply has no chance of passing and angers people because it "asks too much" (again, in the current climate) is no use. There is no glory in martyring oneself for a cause in this game.

Does this mean there's no spineless politicians in office who hide behind hunters rights? Absolutely not, but there's a large different between a phony and a guy who is simply saying "Listen, I know what you're saying, and I agree, but this just can't be done right now, sorry."

Originally Posted by NineseveN

That creates a double-edged sword, because yes, it would likely burn a lot of capital and it would probably fail, but you have to ask yourselves if we're really being served by avoiding that.

Yes we are. Making ridiculous demands not based in reality puts allies into positions where they are screwed either way. They get burned by the people they genuinely support, or they get burned by their peers and constituents when they introduce a ridiculous bill that has no chance of passing. At that point any political capital the group who demanded this is gone with that politician. You have instantly turned a ally who can help you in many other ways into someone who doesn't want anything to do with you over a demand that you knew would probably fail. The only thing you've gained is a warm feeling of keeping it real and being totally no-compromise.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

For every fake pro-gun politician that gets endorsed, supported or protected by gun rights groups, that's one more slot that will not occupy a seriously pro-gun ally. If the fictitious PAGRG supported Joe Schmoe because he was somewhat pro-gun in that he'd support limited advancements and measures to further the RKBA, and by supporting him, the PAGRG gave run of the mill gun owners the impression that he was the best thing since the founding fathers, gun owners would likely continue to support him, leaving no room for a real RKBA candidate that would support the “extreme” measures that you noted above.

Fair enough, but what good is the "real" RKBA candidate if he can't get anything done? Maybe he'll put forward some awesome legislation that sits in committee with no co-sponsors? Awesome, Another principled moral victory that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

In that case, the gun rights advocate group has a split loyalty out of necessity; half of their job is to lobby for gun owners, the other half is to protect their assets and lobby us for the politicians in upholding their image as RKBA patron saints. And this does happen, whether people would prefer to deny it or attack those of us that would say it.

The problem here is deeper than that, which is whether you (and people who hold similar feelings) believe that pro-gun groups are actually looking out for your best interests. Maybe they aren't, that's up to the individual to decide.

I have many complaints with many pro-gun groups, namely the NRA. They have all made mistakes and done very stupid things over the years. None of them have tried to push the legislation I'd like to see happen. But at the end of the day I'm fairly confident that ultimately they are on my side and are doing their best to work within the system to make as many positive changes as they can.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Furthermore, the more radical approaches that some gun owners favor can and do work in other states. There are some state level grass roots organizations that are hardliners and accomplish a lot. I remember when the VCDL was considered radical extremists that make gun owners looks bad and whose actions will lead to stricter gun laws in Virginia. Now, contrast that sentiment with the current situation in Virginia. They're not any less free, in fact, their RKBA constituency is a force to be reckoned with when the fires are lit underneath them.

The VCDL is a great organization which I love dearly, but not everyone will agree with you as to their efficacy at the state legislative level.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

But there will always be disagreement on what battles can be won and which are abandoned for political expediency. It is unwise to dismiss those asking for more or questioning current strategies. Just because that's how it's been done doesn't mean that's how it should be done.

It's not about dismissing anyone, it's about telling people to take a deep breath and realize their demands are simply not realistic. Then if you can do that it's about helping to get those people focused on battles that can be won and lay the foundation for future battles.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Since you brought up “stand your ground laws”, I'll use Florida as an example. They enacted their current concealed carry system in 1985 IIRC, and it was not until 2005 that stand your ground went into effect. It's a little loose to offer that they are directly related in terms of how popular concealed carry was or is. Concealed carry had been widely popular in Florida for the better part of the 20 years between it's establishment and the stand your ground law. If you were thinking more nationally, I'd submit that concealed carry did not prosper across this nation in a flash, some of the right to carry situations are very old, some are relatively new. While changes to the laws have been made along the way, concealed carry has been popular for longer than many gun owners might realize.

That may be true, but all it does is go to show how painfully slow this process can be. It takes patience, realism, and a level head to actually get anything done.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

but pushing for “massive change” or some measure even only slightly more radical than the status quo should not be used as cause to simply disqualify the person making the case

As I said above, these people should not in any way be disqualified, they are important, they keep the fire lit under everyone's butt and help us keep our eyes on the prize. But what I do not accept is when those people expect other people who look at their issues and go "that's unrealistic" to go out and do their work for them.

If someone started working to repeal 922(o) I'd pat them on the back and buy them a beer. But I sincerely doubt I would start spending my money, time, or resources to join the fight. It's simply not a worthy investment right now.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Case in point, there are some RKBA activists that think they're more important than the people. Without dropping names and starting a war, I can directly quote one of them in a written discussion where I asked,

...

And you can choose to support that organization or not. If you think they are doing something wrong, support another organization. Ultimately the "market" will decide who is more effective at getting things done.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

what we already have is a self-fulfilling prophecy; there is nothing better because you'll never get anything better, not necessarily the other way around.

I think in the end we have the same core principles, I mean, I'm an NFA collector it should be fairly obvious where I stand on firearm ownership. I think where we ultimately differ is this:

I will take small victories over epic failures any day of the week.

[SharpShooter88]

I think we should hold a representative election....People to represent the PAFOA as gun owners who are helping preserve the laws. And they should know what they are talking about. I think that would be the best way to go about making a change or helping to influence anything legal. JMHO....

[danp]

Originally Posted by SharpShooter88

I think we should hold a representative election....People to represent the PAFOA as gun owners who are helping preserve the laws. And they should know what they are talking about. I think that would be the best way to go about making a change or helping to influence anything legal. JMHO....

Such a setup would be even farther in the future than us getting involved ourselves. Finding people who actually know what they are talking about is unfortunately much harder than it sounds.

Additionally, having volunteers doing your lobbying is no different legally than doing it yourself.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by danp

Of course not, and it is our job to educate them as to why they should. If anything it should be very easy compared to convincing an anti-gunner. But at the same time it is important not to confuse someone who simply does not support repealing 922(o) with someone who would actively prevent it. While neither of those things are good, I'll take a wimpy pro-gunner over an anti-gunner any day until they start actively working against us.

Agreed, which is why I enjoy the discussion here, lot's people have their eyes opened to things they otherwise wouldn't have even thought of, myself included.

I can't speak for other groups obviously, but I seriously doubt that if the political climate was right for some of the more pie-in-the-sky changes we'd like to make, they would work against it.

Additionally, you should never confuse the will of the masses with what can actually happen or what is a good idea. At some point people have to defer to the expertise of the organizations that they support, or they need to do it themselves (which is fine, more power to them).

I don't know that they would actively work against it, that would be one hell of an assumption to make, but I would agree that if they're [the people] not going to defer to the organizations, they have to work actively on their own. That seems like a simple idea, though as all things, easier said than done.

A pro-gun politician who gets voted out of office for supporting a bill that simply has no chance of passing and angers people because it "asks too much" (again, in the current climate) is no use. There is no glory in martyring oneself for a cause in this game.

Does this mean there's no spineless politicians in office who hide behind hunters rights? Absolutely not, but there's a large different between a phony and a guy who is simply saying "Listen, I know what you're saying, and I agree, but this just can't be done right now, sorry."

I agree with the distinction, but where we'll disagree is how many of those so-called pro-gun politicians that we have currently are the types that you illustrated with your quote at the end there. I'm not able to reconcile with the idea that you think that our politicians are so vastly different than all the others as to be the sole bastion of integrity in politics, that's just too much for me to wrap my mind around. The system is inherently crooked, which affects those that prosper within it. We have Right Wing religious family values people having sexual acts/conversations with boys and cheating on their wives. We have so-called conservatives running on small government tickets and then never meeting a bill and a budget with a deficit they didn't like. The truth is, there are relatively few ideologically honest people in politics, and sadly, they're not all on the side of gun owners. Pelosi would likely be an anti-gunner even if it meant utter doom for her platform's success....conversely, there are very few politicians in this country that would remain ardently 100% pro-gun if it was politically expedient for them to be otherwise. They might not be anti-gun per se, and half-way pro-gun is better than Pelosi, but when we accept such people as our allies and are asked to buy into their dishonesty and play along with the charade because they've voted for a few pro-gun bills, that further corrupts the system and us along with it. The truth is, most politicians are in the middle of those two extremes, they just pander to the respective agendas when it's necessary.

Yes we are. Making ridiculous demands not based in reality puts allies into positions where they are screwed either way. They get burned by the people they genuinely support, or they get burned by their peers and constituents when they introduce a ridiculous bill that has no chance of passing. At that point any political capital the group who demanded this is gone with that politician. You have instantly turned a ally who can help you in many other ways into someone who doesn't want anything to do with you over a demand that you knew would probably fail. The only thing you've gained is a warm feeling of keeping it real and being totally no-compromise.

Fair enough, but what good is the "real" RKBA candidate if he can't get anything done? Maybe he'll put forward some awesome legislation that sits in committee with no co-sponsors? Awesome, Another principled moral victory that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

How are they screwed either way if they truly are our allies? Let's use Alaska-style carry for an example (no permit required, but permits offered for reciprocity's sake). If they are truly our allies, and not just giving us lip service when they say that they'd support such a bill but it won't go anywhere, then I fail to see the problem. If they submit a bill enacting Alaska-style carry, it will either die early on due to a lack of support or it will pass (with or without a fight). If it dies, no gun owner is going to vote them out of office because they did all they could do. If anything, that's our new best friend for trying and being beaten by the rampant anti-gunners we all hear from in the news on a near daily basis. If our other so-called allies support it and it dies, they'll not be voted out of office by gun owners either. Conversely, submitting a bill that dies is not going to have anti-gun PA residents calling for their heads and voting them out of office, the far and wide majority of people in this state have no idea what goes on in Harrisburg when a bill fails. If it picks up steam, then that's a conversation that this state is going to have on the matter, but that's no different than any other pro-gun proposal.

No, where they're screwed is if they're asked to support something they say they do but don't. No one forfeits their office due to a failed bill. Do you realize how many bills die in committee alone each year in politics? The anti-gunners throw the same tired, go-nowhere anti-gun bills against the wall every year both in state and federal politics, yet they remain in office none the less. Where politicians get into trouble is when they vote against or fail to support something they've been telling constituents that they support for years, or going against what they should support based on their platform (see the amnesty bill and Republicans for an example of this). And even that won't lose their seats alone in many cases, especially not when it concerns the RKBA, and especially not in this state (the RKBA is not exactly an election winner or loser here right now). So, if they are truly our allies, then there's not much of a problem, that's what they're there for. If they're not, then having activists, lobbyists and gun owners cover for them and fan the smokescreen to insure their access is dishonest. I don't care if it works to get us some advancement, call it what it is. You can keep it, but at least be honest about what we have.

Some people act like a failed bill costs a dollar a word, it doesn't. Expending more resources than you have on something like that is a failing proposition and wastes capital (financial, resource-wise and even political), which is why the anti-gunners let some of their bills die without so much as a fight. They draft the legislation and submit it knowing that it probably won't pass. This sounds stupid and useless on the surface, but that would be underestimating our opponents. They know that when they do this, they'll also get in the media so that they can cry about the NRA and gun rights lobbyists. They use that failure to rally the troops, which is exactly why it's our side that faces the constant onslaught and why we're always on the defensive and fighting from a corner. It gives their platform a lot of free exposure to sway the uneducated and the middle-roaders. That's worth the price of admission alone because it builds public perception, and that can swing politics in your favor. If our position is indeed reasonable, and there are reasonable ways to make it palatable to the common person, then we can (and do on other issues) benefit from those very same forces. Consider the PICS outage and the sudden press quotes and e-mail updates from some in Harrisburg about eliminating PICS. Us radicals have been talking about this for years and have heard nothing back from the powers that be, but this outage that just happened put the issue into the spotlight a bit and it's helped the notion of getting rid of PICS, even if just a tiny amount. Will it happen tomorrow? Not likely. Does anyone expect it to, even in light of the recent shutdown? I don't see anyone demanding that at all. Does any of this mean it will ever happen? No, but we're talking about it, and support is gaining for it in teeny-tiny increments. For all this talk about small victories, it seems a bit unwise to dismiss that.

In the end, I'm not complaining about PAFOA or any group in particular, such things are pointless in this discussion, and if that's a conversation that needs to be had, now is not likely the time anyway. As you said, the market can decide, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is having dishonesty or inaccuracy as a hallmark of the discussion. Politics is dishonest, let's not pretend otherwise so that some legislators and RKBA groups can save face.

I think PAFOA.org is functioning in a capacity that the gun owners and the RKBA in this state truly needs, I don't know that I could say that anything should be done differently at this point. All of us shooting together, befriending each other learning and helping to educate one another is a priceless commodity, PAFOA serves as the storefront for that. Thanks for making it available to us.

[danp]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I don't know that they would actively work against it, that would be one hell of an assumption to make, but I would agree that if they're [the people] not going to defer to the organizations, they have to work actively on their own. That seems like a simple idea, though as all things, easier said than done.

You're telling me! When I started PAFOA I had a million ideas and things I wanted to do. Reality is a harsh mistress but one you have to deal with.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I agree with the distinction, but where we'll disagree is how many of those so-called pro-gun politicians that we have currently are the types that you illustrated with your quote at the end there. I'm not able to reconcile with the idea that you think that our politicians are so vastly different than all the others as to be the sole bastion of integrity in politics, that's just too much for me to wrap my mind around. The system is inherently crooked, which affects those that prosper within it. ........ The truth is, most politicians are in the middle of those two extremes, they just pander to the respective agendas when it's necessary.

The first part of your statement here really boils us down to another fundamental question: Whether you think government is honest enough where people can get stuff done if they work hard enough. Of course there are cronies and panderers and opportunists in all levels of government, there have been since the beginning of time. Perhaps I'm a little too optimistic but I am fairly confident that there's enough good guys in our government that make it possible to get things done. As for pandering, we just have to work hard to make sure they pander to us. That's the game.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Some people act like a failed bill costs a dollar a word, it doesn't.

It costs someone something per word. Someone has to spend potentially months writing the language of the bill and working with lawyers to make sure that wording does what they want it to do.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

They use that failure to rally the troops, which is exactly why it's our side that faces the constant onslaught and why we're always on the defensive and fighting from a corner. It gives their platform a lot of free exposure to sway the uneducated and the middle-roaders. That's worth the price of admission alone because it builds public perception, and that can swing politics in your favor.

This is probably the best argument for such action, the question is simply whether or not it is worth it. I don't know for sure because I am not yet involved that directly in the process.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Politics is dishonest, let's not pretend otherwise so that some legislators and RKBA groups can save face.

There will always be some level of dishonesty and "politics" in politics. But that's the system we have to live and work in unfortunately.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I think PAFOA.org is functioning in a capacity that the gun owners and the RKBA in this state truly needs, I don't know that I could say that anything should be done differently at this point. All of us shooting together, befriending each other learning and helping to educate one another is a priceless commodity, PAFAO serves as the storefront for that. Thanks for making it available to us.

No problem at all the original goal of PAFOA was just to provide a place for people to learn for themselves and educate others. I am quite happy with the results of that so far. Only time will tell where we go from here.

[NineseveN]

First, I just want to say thank you for taking the time out of your day to discuss this to the extent that you have. I appreciate getting to know you and your intent and understanding a little more. Thanks.

Originally Posted by danp

You're telling me! When I started PAFOA I had a million ideas and things I wanted to do. Reality is a harsh mistress but one you have to deal with.

Of course, all emotional endeavors start out that way, don’t they?

The first part of your statement here really boils us down to another fundamental question: Whether you think government is honest enough where people can get stuff done if they work hard enough. Of course there are cronies and panderers and opportunists in all levels of government, there have been since the beginning of time. Perhaps I'm a little too optimistic but I am fairly confident that there's enough good guys in our government that make it possible to get things done. As for pandering, we just have to work hard to make sure they pander to us. That's the game.

That’s ultimately where we’ll probably disagree. Whether it be the pay raise scandal, the payoffs, kickbacks, lies, flip-flopping or just general dishonesty, I can’t count very many politicians that are above the scum in the pond. It seems that the only thing that motivates those in politics is their continuous lust for power and favor or the fear of losing their seat. That’s going to be where we ultimately start to form different viewpoints. I don’t want them to pander to us, because that ensures that we’re only getting a sampler when we’re buying the whole meal.

It costs someone something per word. Someone has to spend potentially months writing the language of the bill and working with lawyers to make sure that wording does what they want it to do.

On some things I’d agree with this, but Alaska/Vermont carry language is already floating out there, already written and analyzed by volunteers. Is it perfect? No, but the bulk of the work has been done on it, it would still require time, but it’s a mostly simple thing really. With other legislation, it’s a more daunting proposition, but in the example I used, it’s not all that it’s being cracked up to be.

This is probably the best argument for such action, the question is simply whether or not it is worth it. I don't know for sure because I am not yet involved that directly in the process.

Again, that’s where folks will start to disagree, so it’s a discussion that will continue on in the future.

The question I’m left with is, why is it always suggested that we “work together”, but only if that means coming completely over to the side of the current RKBA groups? Why does “work together” mean “do it our way”? I was once privy to a discussion with an RKBA group in another state, they were being criticized for not pushing for a certain RBKA provision, and their response was that they did not have the time or manpower to invest on it. So some volunteers, including two attorneys in that state, worked on the legislation (which in truth pretty much only required striking out a current paragraph and adding a one sentence subsection) and then submitted it to the list for everyone to see.