WI: WGO at it again

[Monkeyleg]

I received this email from the NRA today. Looks like Executive Director is still up to his old tricks:


*





***



*



“Pro-Gun” Group Misrepresenting the Facts!

Recently, an unjust and irresponsible attack was launched by Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) incorrectly stating that the National Rifle Association had taken a position in support of Senate Bill 104, an anti-gun bill introduced by State Senator Spencer Coggs (D-6).* SB 104 would require ALL private transfers of firearms in Wisconsin to be conducted through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL).* This bill would also require FFL’s to charge an additional $5 for running this background check for the private sale to be processed.*

A clerical error at the Wisconsin Ethics Board stated that NRA had registered in support of SB 104.* This error has since been resolved.* The Wisconsin Ethics Board has no documentation in their records of NRA ever communicating a position of support for SB 104.*

Not only has NRA been opposed to SB 104 from its inception, but testified against it at a public hearing in Milwaukee on Tuesday, May 29 and submitted written testimony.* NRA alerted its members on Wednesday, May 23 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=3027) to attend this hearing and to urge the committee members to oppose SB 104.*

Not only is WGO incorrectly stating that the NRA supports SB 104 on its website and in its newsletters, but they are also circulating “Gun Rights” surveys to its members intentionally misrepresenting NRA’s position for fundraising purposes.*

NRA will continue to protect our Second Amendment rights in Madison by actively pushing for pro-gun legislation and vehemently opposing any and all threats to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

*

 

[BB62]

Hmmm...

Is this the WI gun group whose judgement re: open carry is to be respected?

 

[Monkeyleg]

Do a search here on THR for "Executive Director" or "WGO." I think you'll reach your own conclusions about what WGO is.

 

[Executive Director]

Why is NRA attacking WGO for 'clerical error'?

Did NRA leadership make a 'clerical error' in support of statewide handgun ban?

December 3, 2007

A recent NRA-ILA alert accuses WGO of "intentionally misrepresenting" the NRA's position on statewide handgun ban legislation -- a position that remained on the state lobbying website for several months to be viewed by scores of legislators, staff members and citizens

Today NRA-ILA released an e-mail attack campaign against WGO ('Pro-Gun' Group Misrepresenting the Facts!', December 3, 2007, NRA-ILA) claiming "an unjust and irresponsible attack was launched by Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) incorrectly stating that the National Rifle Association had taken a position in support of Senate Bill 104."

Members of Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) once again deserve a "salute" for their hard work in calling NRA leadership out to clarify their position on a major statewide handgun ban affecting private sales.

The real question is, Why is NRA-ILA attacking WGO when they should be thanking us?

Background: Back in July, 2007, pro-gun activists in Wisconsin learned the NRA was -- according to the Wisconsin Ethics Board website -- supporting SB104 -- dangerous legislation banning private citizen-to-citizen handgun sales in Wisconsin, a bill introduced by Milwaukee Democrat Spencer Coggs.

We were saddened -- though not surprised, given NRA leadership's past willingness to compromise -- that the national gun lobby purporting to represent gun owners had taken a position on the bill via the Ethics Board website publicly undermining the Second Amendment.

WGO staff shot photographic proof of the Wisconsin Ethics Board website page showing NRA's position on the handgun ban as "Support" (see photo here). No facts were misrepresented. Quite the opposite.

Indeed, wouldn't it have been "unjust" and "irresponsible" for WGO to remain quiet -- to not inform our members -- the gun owners of Wisconsin -- who would be directly impacted by this egregious bill?

For the record, WGO has always consistently OPPOSED SB104 and all other gun control bills currently before the Wisconsin legislature. Opposing this bill was and is a top priority for us.

In fact, WGO blasted the bill and its sponsor in a scorching media campaign through radio ads that impacted hundreds of thousands of constituents in the Milwaukee area.

We are proud of our 100% pro-gun record. All legislators, their staff members and gun owners are urged to view WGO's lobbying page to track our position on gun bills. See our positions on bills here:

While NRA-ILA tried to paint a picture that they have always opposed SB104 -- citing the fact that NRA testified against the bill at a public hearing -- we all know that a great deal of water passed over the dam in between then and now, and just because a group opposed a bill then, is no absolute assurance that the group opposes it now.

'Just trust us,' seems to be the message.

The purpose of the Wisconsin Ethics Board and their online reporting tools is to provide people -- elected and unelected alike -- with up-to-date information on positions lobbying organizations take on legislation.

Even if backroom deals are cut with the enemy on a bill, registered groups are still required to update their position on the bill. This is a good thing, a check and balance, that keeps citizens in tune with the legislative process via open government.

Wisconsin's lobbying laws are designed to keep the position of groups in the OPEN rather than behind closed doors.

Rather than criticize WGO for reporting the truth about the NRA's position as it appeared online, NRA-ILA should fire its state lobbyists who apparently were asleep at the wheel.

In its attack on WGO, NRA-ILA did not specify who made the clerical error - NRA-ILA or the Wisconsin Ethics Board. If NRA made the error, don't they know their own position on gun bills? If it was the Ethics Board, why didn't NRA's paid lobbyists catch the error?

The NRA did testify against this bill on May 29, 2007 -- that fact is not disputed.

However, on July 30, what WGO reported, was the truth: according to the Wisconsin Ethics Board website, the NRA was now supporting the handgun ban according to public document.

Given the dynamic, fast-changing nature of bills as they move through the legislative process, the Ethics Board website provides registered lobbying organizations (like WGO and the NRA) the ability to update positions on bills and amendments.

This is what we do - it is what our members rightfully expect from us -- we monitor the progress of important actions in Madison.

We simply tell the truth as it is -- we don't sugar coat issues or obscure them in emotionalism -- and that's the responsible thing to do. In fact, it's our duty -- despite the risk of drawing heat from political hacks intent on silencing that dissemination of vital information.

NRA CLAIMS ONLINE SITE SHOWING SUPPORT FOR BILL WAS A 'CLERICAL ERROR'

During the expansive time the Wisconsin Ethics Board page depicted NRA's position in support of the handgun ban, how many legislators, staff and citizen activists believed the NRA was supporting the handgun ban?

How could NRA leadership in Washington or the NRA's state lobbyists not notice -- for many months on end - that their organization was publicly supporting (again, according to the Ethics Board website) a major statewide handgun ban -- one of the most egregious gun control proposals facing Badger State gun owners in recent history?

A clerical error? On something as critical to you and me as this proposed ban?

Our members are sharp - and vocal. We hear from people within days if there are typos in our newsletter or in their mailing address -- THOSE are clerical errors. Official records of an organization's stance on a major and threatening statewide handgun ban are not what we would consider clerical errors.

This speaks to the concern that we've had for a long time -- since our inception, in fact. We fear the NRA as an organization (not speaking of individual NRA members who we consider to be honest, smart and staunch gun rights supporters) is simply too large to concern itself with the issues of one state.

It's easy to understand in a seeming bureaucracy such as theirs how the right hand wouldn't know what the left hand was doing -- and "clerical errors" are made.

We're not willing to take that chance or play these games with your rights.

We're relieved to hear NRA leadership is not supporting SB104. We are also proud that it was WGO's reporting of the facts that seem to have compelled NRA leadership to get its own position straight.

You see, the NRA's dispute isn't with WGO -- the NRA's dispute is with itself.

In the past, WGO has attempted to contact NRA state lobbyists for comment -- we've reached out our hand to them to gain understanding of their positions for our reporting and to work together -- only to receive a "cold shoulder" as our phone calls were never returned.

It seems as if those holding to a proper view of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are viewed as a threat that needs to be silenced and outcast from insider-politics.

Even so, NRA members are smart. These gun owners need to ask NRA-ILA leadership a few simple questions, starting with:


How did NRA not know its own position was being reported on the Ethics Board website for several months in SUPPORT of a statewide handgun ban?


In light of this major strategic embarrassment for NRA "leadership," should gun owners in Wisconsin conclude NRA's Washington, D.C. leadership is too distant and bureaucratic to pay attention to gun control bills affecting Wisconsin gun owners?


Why is NRA-ILA attacking an honest, state-level gun group when they should be thanking us? Had it not been for WGO's reporting of the facts, NRA's position may still be online showing "Support" for the handgun ban bill - doing further damage to our unified cause against the bill -- and shouldn't NRA leadership be standing united with Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) -- Wisconsin's only registered state-level gun rights lobbying organization -- instead of being divisive and attacking their fellow gun rights group?

Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) commends the hard work of Badger State gun activists who "sounded the alarm" as it now appears these outcries have forced NRA leadership to correct the "clerical error" which indicated the group had once again jumped across the aisle on another useless gun control scheme.

All of this proves the drastic need for an honest, state-level gun rights organization who works for grassroots gun owners and not politicians. Thanks to your support, WGO is that organization.

It's now official: As of today's date, NRA is opposed to SB104. Let's hope it stays that way.


Corey Graff
Executive Director

Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc.
PO Box 338
Green Bay, WI 54305

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org

tel 888.202.1645
fax 866.208.1346

"Wisconsin's only no-compromise gun rights organization"

 

[Monkeyleg]

"...an honest, state-level gun group..."

I had to hit the bathroom after reading that one.

This is the same "pro-gun" group that ran radio ads against Dave Zien, who was the most pro-gun member of the WI state senate. Zien lost his re-election bid, and control of the state senate was turned over to anti-gunners.

The same group that didn't tell people who were contributing to its political action committee that their contributions were going to be used to attack Dave Zien.

Executive Director, you're a real piece of work. I'd say "piece" of something else, but this is The High Road.

 

[C. Rabbit]

Is this the WI gun group whose judgement re: open carry is to be respected?

As I recall, the 'Executive Director' wants full Vermont-style carry, and nothing less. Which means he actively campaigns against any CCW permit system and goes for the all or nothing approach. Other bills he's been 'consistently opposed' to are ones that would give CCW to Wisconsin (finding a licensing system for a natural right repugnant). And considering politics, especially in Wisconsin in regards to CCW, he's got less than nothing; he helped oust one of the most pro-gun members of the Wisconsin legislature.

The real question is; which side is he really on?

I second the recommendation to do a search on the E.D.

CR

 

[billwiese]

Wow, this sounds like some local yokel politics. A buncha "absolute purity" guys rant & rave and get nothing done, and end up burning NRA's legilslative contacts.

We had (and have) exactly that same issue here in CA. We have an entity called GOC (Gun Owners of CA), apparently an offshoot of GOA. There's a similar organization called CRPA, Calif Rifle & Pistol Assoc. Both of these orgs don't have any elections or real boards - they're in essence private businesses & contract lobbyists (CRPA). "Send us money so we can keep fighting", they say - except they don't have one bill passed or vetoed or modified that they can show. They either tag along behind NRA efforts or shrug their shoulders and say, "lookit this bill we proposed".

Our CA GOC's main claim to fame is (1) yelling at the NRA (2) proposing legislation that has zero chance of passage, (3) not understanding stealth politics, (4) at this point not able to make much difference in elections. [They did make a difference in one primary maybe 6 years ago, but it was essentially a safe seat for a gunnie, and the person in that seat just happened to be an antigunnie that got in by accident - so dislodging her was no big feat.]

This year, we had three main gun bills coming out of legislature: AB1471, the microstamping bill, the AB821 "condor-protection" lead-ammo ban, and another (forget the #) "Katrina bill" preventing gun seizures in emergencies.

Those of us enmeshed in the CA gun fight details knew that the Governor was not predisposed to sign these bills. Gov's legislative affairs staff recommended vetoes - aside from general conservative political stance - due to a variety of intrinsic flaws in the proposed laws.

However, near the end of session GOC stirred up drama by getting some legislators to pass around a letter it drafted, requesting the Governor boot a Fish & Game commissioner (Hanna) who had made some noises about the lead ammo bil. Given it was end of session and Gov needed Repub. votes on other way more pressing matters (budget, etc.) the governor did indeed boot Hanna - but that jockeying left a bad taste in his mouth.

When it came time for Gov to sign bills, he signed AB821 lead ammo bill - and as a bonus he also signed the microstamping bill. [Leg staff had prepared veto recommendations on both.] This was 'bite back' for being cornered: the Gov doesn't know the difference between GOC/CRPA idiots and NRA at that level; all he knows a buncha 'gun guys' caused him grief, and put him in a situation with the legislature at critical time. NRA and CA gunowners took it in the pants because some uncoordinated publicity stunts from other supposedly 'pro gun' organizations.

Our GOC was so stupid in its fight for public relevance that they created drama in an area that was already under scrutiny at a critical time: they won the battle (got the F&G commish out for talking about lead ammo) but lost the war - the lead ammo bill was signed! If there hadn't been this drama, the governor would've been able to use the regulatory authority of the Dept. of F&G as cover for a veto, saying that any issues could be far better solved with minor regulations targeting specific problem areas - instead of blunderbuss legislation.

Prior to this, GOC had tried to float some legislation it drafted to partially ameliorate CA's AW ban. While the bill would have helped in certain situations, it also would've created a really bad "constructive possession" status for AWs in CA[/i] - something we don't have on the books right now. That opens a whole can of worms and makes it far easier to bust & prosecute someone, and would stop gripless/fixed-mag off-list rifles, purchasing disassembled 'retirement guns' for when people move out of CA, etc. It also would have smoothed over some legal matters that currently allow us to attack CA's AW ban in court (slowly but surely...)

Our other group, CRPA, has similar but worse problems. They actually contributed (along with CA's SASS idiot leader) to our SB15 'safe handgun' rostering laws - the ones that built the framework for which the microstaming laws were dropped into. CRPA lobbyists Kathy Lynch and Jim Erdman also represent other interests including large firearm retailers, who actually *liked* the approved handgun restrictions as these chains can readily turn their guns that drop off the list, compared to smaller mom & pop shops. California SASS leadership got 'bought off' when their precious single-action wheelguns became exempt from approval & Rostering: the split in gunnies was perceived by fence-sitting legislators as fragmented support and therefore a 'safe antigun' vote. This bill would not have passed if CRPA & SASS had ****.

When I wrote about this a month or so ago on Calguns.net, GOC's leader Sam Paredes sent out a "non-response response" (thru third parties, he wasn't man enough to directly respond even though I believe he reads Calguns or some of its info is fed to him) to my criticism. It was full of bluster and how-dare-you-compromise-our-fight but he continually danced around giving specific denials that he wrote the troublemaking letter, that he floated it around legislature, etc. (Nor could he, because I can round up a dozen other folks that can swear he did, and produce copies of the letter to boot.)

Similarly, CRPA's Lynch & Erdman also supported Torrico's ammo bill last year (AB2731) that would in effect ban mailorder ammo sales to Californians. Of course their large sporting goods retailers liked that - you think Big 5 or Turner's wants to sell you, or let you buy, bulk milsurp SA 308 at case prices? When it was discovered they'd done this they had a quick about-face and issued another non-denial denial letter, "we keep fighting for you".


I and many others in CA reached the conclusion some time ago that GOC and CRPA are, in actual fact, 'antigun' organizations by their results - no matter their professed sentiments. This year they actually did more damage to us than any Brady type.




Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[TexasRifleman]

I gotta say, this is 2007 and computer use should be something most folks are familiar with.

The photo shown in the article posted above by Exec Director could be of anything.

Every operating system available has the capability of taking a screen shot of an entire screen to document things like this.

You've posted a picture that could be of just about anything. The photo does not show the URL where you found this supposed gem.

You may not be faking it but the ignorant method of demonstrating your "proof" makes those of us with a rudimentary understanding of computers call your claims into question.

Or to keep it simple, you sound like you're full of s&$t.

As usual, wake me up if anything actually happens.......

 

[Michael Thomson]

WGO actively worked during the 2006 elections to help defeat Senator Dave Zien, who was probably one of the staunchest supporters of gun rights in the Wisconsin legislature. Senator Zien was one of the principal sponsors of the right to carry legislation and had twice succeeded in getting the legislation passed through the Wisconsin legislature only to be twice vetoed by Gov. Doyle.

Thanks to Graff and WGO, Senator Zien was defeated by an "F" rated candidate after Graff/WGO took out ads against Senator Zien calling him anti-gun for sponsoring a right to carry bill that wasn't Vermont style. In the end, Graff succeeded and Wisconsin's gun owners still can't carry a concealed firearm for self defense and we lost a true gun rights champion in the Wisc Senate. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if that was his motive all along. One has to seriously wonder who they're really working for because it certainly isn't Wisconsin's gun owners.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-220409.html

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-231372.html

It's also funny how Graff admits NRA testified against the bill but goes on to say they changed their minds.

The NRA did testify against this bill on May 29, 2007 -- that fact is not disputed.

However, on July 30, what WGO reported, was the truth: according to the Wisconsin Ethics Board website, the NRA was now supporting the handgun ban according to public document.

Seems like a clerical error and Graff simply wants to bash NRA.

Here is a copy of NRA's alert on the bill from last April.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=2836

I wouldn't be surprised if WGO isn't a front group for Gov. Doyle and the Brady clowns since he's seems to be doing their job for them.

 

[JohnBT]

"However, on July 30, what WGO reported, was the truth: according to the Wisconsin Ethics Board website,"

Did you verify the info before going on the offensive? No, you didn't. Do you believe everything you read on a website? You're still too busy bashing to get your information straight.

"Members of Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) once again deserve a "salute" for their hard work in calling NRA leadership out to clarify their position on a major statewide handgun ban affecting private sales."

Calling them out. Is that what you're about? Wouldn't a simple call to verify have accomplished more and accomplished it faster? Yes. Wouldn't have been as much fun though, would it?

John

 

[cracked butt]

E.D. or COrey Graf or whatever his name, is in my 'antigunner in progunner's clothing' bin until proven otherwise. I'd say more but E.D. trolls on this site and I'm trying to stay on the high road. His 'no-compromise' bullcrap means that I get to drive through and work in a high crime area everyday without legal means of arming myself. Thanks a hell of a lot E.D.

 

[scout26]

As the father of a 7 year old son and 14 year old daughter I'm familiar with these tactics.

7yo - "Mom, Meghan told me to 'Shut up'.
14yo - "I did not, I told him to be quiet."

14yo - "Dad, Robert called me a poop head'.
7yo - "I did not, I told her to get out of my room'.

Etc, etc. etc.


As an adult, I've taken the opportunity both personally and professionally to pull a loved-one, friend, or co-worker aside and say "Hey, I found/saw/heard this. Did you really mean that or is it an error/typo/misunderstanding."

ED's spin on this is nothing more then calling the NRA "poopyheads" when obviously some gov't clerk clicked on the wrong box on their computer.

An adult would called the NRA and said "Hey, Darren, Wayne or Chris, I think you need to get someone to check on Wisconsin. They show you supporting SB104 which I know you testified against. Just a 'Heads-up'." and let it go at that.

But I guess that wouldn't get the 'faithful' fired up enough to send in more cash.........

 

[Gene_WI]

The biggest paid (by DNC and Doyal) anti gun troll, on all the regional WI news forum is based out of Green Bay. Hmmm...... Makes you wonder.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Another thing that cracks me up about this "report" is the link to the photo of the Ethics Board statement. The page on WGO's site shows a photo of Darren LaSorte from the NRA.

Darren moved on at NRA/ILA, and his replacement is Jordan Austin. Of course, Executive Director is so far out of the loop that he didn't know that.

There's all sorts of stuff ED doesn't know, but that doesn't stop him from spouting off.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Good job keeping things high road so far. Thanks!

 

[JohnBT]

I just clicked on the WGO link in the Executive Director post.

Here's the leading headline: "Did NRA leadership make a ‘clerical error’ in support of statewide handgun ban?"

It appears the state's web site isn't the only site to contain an inaccuracy.

Okay, so the NRA didn't notice the state site contained a factual error. Big deal. Did the WGO bring it to the NRA's attention. Apparently not. They just went straight to attack mode.

Executive Director, what's your excuse for your site? Still on the attack, aren't you?

John

 

[Monkeyleg]

Below is one of three emails I was going to send those on our alert list after the 2006 elections. On advice from a couple of attorneys, I decided to not send two of the three, and decided that one would be insufficient to expose WGO. But now seems like as good a time as any to post one of the emails.

*****

Dear fellow gun owner:

In the last email to you, I mentioned some of the theories people have about Wisconsin Gun Owners. One of those theories is that the group is actually working for the anti-gun side.

Is that a ridiculous theory? Maybe. Or maybe not.

WGO claims to be Wisconsin's "no compromise" gun group. In politics, "no compromise" means that you almost always will get none of what you want. Unless, of course, what you really want is nothing.

One of the stated goals of Wisconsin Gun Owners is Vermont-style carry, meaning that no permits are required for either open or concealed carry. A laudable goal but, considering that Wisconsin is just one of two remaining states that completely prohibits concealed carry, a Vermont-style law here is an impossibility.

By insisting on a Vermont-style bill, WGO is playing into the anti-gunners' hands by helping the anti's get what they want: no concealed carry law at all.

During this last election, anti-gun Democrats had targetted two Republican legislators in particular: Senator Dave Zien, and Representative Mark Pettis. Democrats spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat Zien and for obvious reasons: a Republican loss of just three seats in the Senate would turn control of that chamber over to the anti-gun Democrats.

And what did Wisconsin Gun Owners do? They spent money running radio ads in Dave Zien's district, accusing him of being in favor of gun control.

That's right. They ran radio ads accusing the singularly most pro-gun member of the state Senate of being in favor of gun control. While the anti-gunners were attacking Dave Zien as "extreme" on guns, WGO was helping the anti's by running ads lying about Dave's record. Even today, on their website, WGO is cheering Dave Zien's defeat.

Come January, the Democrats will have control of the state Senate, and Senator Judy Robson will be the majority leader. Judy Robson is easily one of the most anti-gun members of the Senate, with a long record of sponsoring anti-gun bills.

In their fall newsletter, which came out days before the election, WGO featured a column attacking Republican Representative Mark Pettis. Mark Pettis has always been one of the strongest voices in the Assembly for pro-gun issues. Yet WGO again helped the anti-gunners by attacking Mark.

Meanwhile, WGO devoted almost no effort working to defeat Governor Jim Doyle, and even suggested in their newsletter that Mark Green might be as anti-gun as Doyle.

If you think about this long enough, your head will explode. A group that claims to be pro-gun uses its resources to help anti-gunners defeat some of the best friends gun owners have in the legislature, and turn over control of the Senate to the anti-gunners, thus ensuring that no pro-gun legislation will ever see the light of day.

There's an old saying, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."

Is WGO a "duck?" I'll leave that for you to decide.

Thanks,
Dick Baker
Treasurer, WCCA

 

[Robert Hairless]

Yet another "No compromise" group strutting its stuff for the benefit of the chronically angry and frustrated.