What is PAFOA doing to help PA gun laws?

[WhiteFeather]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Personally, I think what PAFOA is doing right now is exactly what needs done. Guys, you have to understand that you cannot put our future into the hands of some organization or committee. Sure, it's great because people like those with the NRA, GOA, or the FOAC and ACSL locally do almost all the work, but in the end, you run the risk of the message and the organization becoming more important than the individual. We're talking about rights here, and it is important that each individual exercises and fights to protect or increase those rights. If you relegate your support of civil rights solely to some organization, you're not going to be represented fully.

Our problem isn't that we have too few lobbyists or activists, it's that we have too many gun owners that don't understand the law or are just a little bit less anti-gun than the Brady Bunch is. IMHO, it is more important to squash the notions that many gun owners have:

1. Against Open Carry (many, many gun owners are against this due to irrational arguments and fears that are not founded on any known evidence or realistic concerns).

2. Against Vermont/Alaska-style carry (many gun owners mistakenly fall for the VPC-type rhetoric that the formal LTCF process keeps guns out of criminal hands - this flies in the face of one of our main arguments, that gun laws that adversely affect the common citizen do not stop or deter criminals from obtaining or possessing arms...either gun control works or it doesn't).

3. Against so-called Assault Weapons (many gun owners are as anti-gun as Sarah Brady when the topic of Assault Weapons comes up)

4. Against LTCF's without further intrusive checks, limitations or regulations (such as mandatory training, revocation or denial for unrelated non-violent misdemeanors and/or with a lack of true due process)

5. About the differences between a right and a privilege (i.e. why do we need an AK-47 if we can't hunt with it -when hunting has little to nothing to do with the RKBA politically)

6. The truth about NFA items and firearms (many gun owners mistakenly think these should be regulated as they are and misunderstand the fundamental principle behind the Second Amendment, which is to provide for a means of defense against a standing army and a tyrannical government)


This forum provides a place for these discussions to take place and hopefully to educate other gun owners and change the minds of those holding the above well-intentioned yet uninformed opinions. Lobbyists can't do this, activists can’t really do this; we have to do it ourselves.

Groups like the NRA, ASCL, FOAC and such all have to play with a delicate balance of effectiveness and access; if they come out too hard for something like Vermont/Alaska style carry, they run the risk of exposing many of our so-called pro-gun reps that are against such measures of liberty, thus losing their access to do the things they are able to do now. If Joe Schmoe campaigns around the state as being a Second Amendment advocate and the sportsmen’s candidate, what do you think would happen to him if the issue of Vermont/Alaska Carry came up and he went against it? Most of the so-called pro-gun politicians are only as pro-gun as they have to be to secure and maintain our votes. Sure there are some exceptions, but let’s be honest with ourselves…there’s a reason why so many jokes are made about lying politicians. Stereotypes, while ugly, often contain a great deal of truth So if the PA-Gun-Right-Group forces the issue that costs Joe Schmoe to feel a lot of heat about his position, he’s not going to be very open to working with them in the future, even on something he does support unless he’s forced to or he really benefits from it more than we do. That’s the nature of access-oriented politics and lobbyism/activism.

Why do you think the NRA doesn't push hard for a repeal of the NFA and related laws? Because their access and public image is a key component to how effective they can be in the halls of legislation. Unless they have a mob of screaming gun owners that truly represent the majority behind them, we'll likely never see them in a position to push for a repeal of the NFA (on a federal level) or Alaska/Vermont carry (for our local groups).

The recent shutdown of the PICS system angered enough gun owners that abolishing PICS has some traction now and is popular enough for them to be able to truly bring it to the table, but they would not have had the same kind of exposure on such measures even a few years ago when most gun owners didn't mind PICS because it did not negatively affect them and because it wasn't a topic that mainstream gun owners were discussing. Many of us have been crying against PICS for a long time, but the cries of a few hard-line gun owners won't get traction on an issue. Never mind the notion that you cannot say that one-gun-a-month laws and AWB’s don’t work because criminals will get guns anyway and then really be for the LTCF process or background checks because they’re the same thing really. The same arguments work against them because they’re virtually the same; it boils down to making those that would follow the law jump through additional hoops to give the mere appearance that it deters or hinders those that aren’t following the law anyway. Until we erase that double standard and misconception from the majority ranks of gun owners, we’re going to be in a state of limbo where we’re vulnerable to unreasonable restrictions and unfair compromises because half or more than half of our gun owner brethren are agreeing to it or even asking for it…and the activists and lobbyists only have so much that they can work with.


We need to educate and radicalize the majority. Right now, the pro-gun vote does not generally win or lose elections in this state; we have to change that. We have too many apathetic, misinformed and ‘only pro-gun in so much as they're less anti-gun than the hard left’ gun owners in this state, the change starts with them and PAFOA has gone a long way in a short time in providing a medium to effectively educate and rally gun owners and bring us all together. That's something we really need right now and going on into the future and it’s something that only PAFOA has offered us to the extent that it could be effective.

OK here is all of your chance to do something, go to the following link.

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/forum-ann...arrisburg.html

NineseveN

You made some good points, some excellent points and some are not correct in the regard to groups you mentioned. We could also go back and forth with little points or nuances of this one does that or this doesn’t do that or what not, what would really be the point?

So I wanted to clarify your post since I am involved in with helping out 2 of 3 of these groups first hand, in my opinion your generalization about all three being the same is not true and is not accurate from my involvement but like you its only my opinion and we are all entitled to ours. We can also can both choose to disagree on the subject.

Of the three groups you mentioned they have entirely different make and purposes with in confines of the charters and stated purposes, or operations.

One group is non profit and prohibited from endorsing candidates or giving political contributions (unless taxes are paid). It is made up of many member clubs with appointed delegates representing their clubs that drives the direction of this organization. It’s composed of many different committees and only one of them is involved in legislative affairs that affect all of their individual member clubs interest (hunting, fishing, conservation, not just gun control,). It has regular scheduled meeting open to the public that anyone could attend. It has banded together with other PA based organizations to invite people to attend their press conferences in Harrisburg to make the difference, and worked to and pass pro gun bills introduced at those conferences.

The other two groups are political and can both endorse candidates for political office.
That is where the similarity stops. One group is always hitting up its members for fund raising and I believe what you said is accurate as how they operate with their political stance and actions on gun control, its professional full time PA lobbyists is probably is paid more than the other two groups entire combined budgets are. With all of that money, creating political backing still its mismanaged, as big as it is still no where near as effective as the other two are with only individual volunteers and very limited budget are.

One group was created because the other one was not doing it stated purpose or worse yet comprising everyone rights and not representing lots of their member’s opinions or views as you correctly identified. This group has spent many years developing strategies to be effective politically and it encourages active participation from its members. It volunteers attend guns shows, sportsmen’s events and political events trying to educate people on the problems associated with gun ownership that you correctly identified in your post (probably while you were unaware of the problems). Educating gun owners and politicians to problems with negative effects of gun laws is one of its primary purposes.

FYI politicians running for public offices in most cases is nothing more than a popularity contest and once they get elected are no smarter than anyone else about rights or the constitution they are just elect able. So if you do not take the time to educate them, guess what happens, someone else tells them what they think the people who elected them want them to do, just to get re-elected. Here is where these small two groups of individual volunteers work together and really make a difference.

This group has a vastly more detailed and extensive questionnaire that it ask of all candidates running for public offices in PA and follows them up with personal interviews and unlike the other one has a real rating / grading system that has basis in facts or past votes. When people get elected, this group tries to educate them on numerous gun related issues with facts and figures. A very sad thing is most people include elected ones get their beliefs or form their opinions on firearms from watching tv movies or mass media indoctrinations. This group of dedicated individual volunteers work polling booths, walk districts for candidates, stuff envelopes and use their private mailing list, typical print and distribute over 200,000 copies of their voter guides to sportsmen all of this to make the difference in outcome of elections. Many state office elections are decided by less than 400 votes (a single gun club). Gun owners can not win elections granted but with individuals help they can sway or decide the outcome in close elections. Some one is going to fill.



What I am suggesting NineseveN is that you take your time to personal investigate the two that you listed that actual want the individuals input, attend their open meetings, talk with their board of directors. With your writing skills you could be a real asset to other dedicated like minded individuals in those groups that want to change things for the better.

I also hope NineseveN you along with the rest of PAFOA members try to attend the Harrisburg legislator lobbying day on Oct 23, 2007 to see first hand how individuals can make a difference. Go read the info on event here.

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/forum-ann...arrisburg.html

This offer is also extend to everyone reading this post and should be explored by all of you wanting to make a difference for the future of PA.

Really we all have a choice, to be part of problem, part of the solution or part of the landscape. I choose to be part of the solution, how about the rest of you.

Note also if you come up with some bright idea and they support it you better expect to be the guy that has to run with the ball.

Thanks again Dan for PAFOA website and to all moderators

[NineseveN]

I fully understand the differences between the three I mentioned, but I said nothing about endorsing, that wasn't the point. All of those groups depend on access in some way, shape or form. The access may be with different people, at different levels or from different angles (coalitions, bill writing and submission, committees, access/invitation to political events etc…), but they all depend on it (some more than others). It doesn't matter to me whether they use/need this access to get bills submitted and pushed or whether they use it to gain credibility with the suits in Harrisburg, the net effect is the same, they can't very well use that model and burn their bridges at the same time.

FYI politicians running for public offices in most cases is nothing more than a popularity contest and once they get elected are no smarter than anyone else about rights or the constitution they are just elect able. So if you do not take the time to educate them, guess what happens, someone else tells them what they think the people who elected them want them to do, just to get re-elected. Here is where these small two groups of individual volunteers work together and really make a difference.

See, that's where I think many are just being naïve for the sake of believing what they want to believe. Politicians do not come into the system without their own thoughts, no one tells them what to think, no one educates a politician. Their advisors and staff brief them on what is politically expedient for them to portray, nothing more, nothing less. For example, you will never, ever, "educate" a politician worth their election potential to turn from pro-choice to pro-life, not now, not ever. His or her advisors might test the political winds and advise that it's politically expedient to tone down (or ramp up) their rhetoric on the position, or to refrain from mentioning or engaging in the discussion of the topic itself (or dominate the headlines and sound bytes ranting and raving about it), but they won't change their stripes; animals in that jungle rarely, if ever do – and if they do, it's certainly not because someone educated them.

What you can expose them to is how the laws are affecting their constituents, and in doing so, they may take action on their behalf, but only if they're already receptive to your plight in the first place. You could sit every convincing gun rights expert in the world down with Ted Kennedy for a 5 day summit and he would still come out as anti-gun as he was going in. You could chain Ron Paul up in the VPC's board room for a year and he'd come walking out of there still more pro-gun than just about any politician at his level. Now, those politicians that seem middle of the road might be able to be influenced to some degree, but there aren't all that many of them at those levels of government.

The days of public servants giving themselves over to the whim of the people are mythical at best, and at worst, nothing more than a fond reminiscence of a time and a phenomena which no longer exists. The major parties have made a great success of polarizing people based on the color of their pom-poms that what they do on single issues is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The only thing a politician cares about is power, and unless you have the ability to take that power away (and can demonstrate it), they're just going to pay you lip service when you raise an issue.

But you're right, in the end, at least on the viability of educating politicians, we can agree to disagree.

[Mtbkski]

WOW, someone that writes as much as Nineseven.

And after skimming over both of your post. I have decided that it is time for Civil Unrest. Take up your arms. Prepare to defend yourselves. And press one for English.