Is the NRA backing the right man?

[2dogs]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3550

Thank You, “Captain Freedomâ€!

By David Codrea
[email protected]

January 16, 2003

KeepAndBearArms.com -- The NRA labels former California Assemblyman Rod Wright "Captain Freedom," thanks him for his support of the Second Amendment, and tells gun owners they "could not ask for a better friend." They even gave him their "Defender of Freedom" award.



A few slight problems:

In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, “Captain Freedom†revealed:

“The ‘gun lobby’, as you refer to it, offered an alternative which would have been much more effective at limiting purchases. Their idea was to limit purchases to six per year, as opposed to 12 in the one-gun-a-month bill. In addition, they required any purchase over three to be done with law enforcement present for the actual delivery.â€

“Fewer guns, stronger background checks,†our champion the Captain continued, “what’s the problem?â€

Who could this “gun lobby" he mentions be? Was this chilling, tyrannical infringement of the Second Amendment really "their idea� Why would they engineer such an edict? And can “Captain Freedom†truly see no “problem†with it?

"Captain Freedom" authored a bill to increase CCW licensing fees from $3 to up to $100, with up to a $10 fee for license amendments and up to $25 for renewals. His bill also included authorization to increase these fees in accordance with the California Consumer Price Index. It further provided for testing of applicants by a police-mandated psychologist, and tacked on $150 fees for both initial and renewal applications when required—all this to exercise the inalienable, Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms.

“Captain Freedom†added his endorsement to that of Handgun Control, Inc., for rabid self-defense enemy Mike Feuer in his bid for Los Angeles City Attorney. How do we know Feuer is anti-gun? Easy—the “Winning Team†tells us so, characterizing him as an “anti-gun extremist†and thanking their “supporters who worked so hard to ensure Feuer's defeat.†Meanwhile, NRA’s honored hero worked hard against his hero-worshipping admirers and benefactors toward der Feuer’s victory.

“Captain Freedom†also endorsed Jim Hahn for LA Mayor. Hahn’s position on guns? Typical stuff for a career statist with taxpayer-funded police protection: suing gun manufacturers; rewarding Smith & Wesson for caving in (a deal the gun maker has still never attempted to rescind, despite changing owners and management); persecuting gun owners for bearing arms, while simultaneously prohibiting “legal†carry; banning ownership of militia-suitable arms, that is, the means to carry out the core purpose of the Second Amendment; requiring citizens to lock up their safety; and banning affordable firearms. Thanks, “Captain Freedomâ€!

Perhaps most telling, "Captain Freedom" only scored a measly 38% with Gun Owners of California, voting AGAINST gun owners 62% of the time in 2001 (and also in 1999—at least he’s consistent).

"Captain Freedom" has been term-limited out of the California Assembly, and is now running for the Los Angeles City Council—where he can join another of NRA's "good friend of the Second Amendment", Dennis Zine ("Lieutenant Liberty"?), who voted to ban .50 caliber rifles.

The LA NRA Members Council, who bill themselves as "freedom fighters who know how to win," are currently working hard to elect "Captain Freedom". In their words [screenshot], Wright is "the most recent winner of the NRA Defender of Freedom award, a national award given only to the most effective and staunch defenders of our right to keep and bear arms. Assemblyman Wright stood with us constantly during his tenure in the Assembly, and now that his time there has ended due to term limits, he is running for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. We desperately need his help on the Council, and we plan to give him maximum support in his election bid. Assemblyman Wright will relate to us some of his experiences in the Assembly fighting for our freedom, and will tell us his plans for the future."

It’s true that Rod Wright has come through for gun owners in the past on some important votes, notably in his opposition to the “assault weapons†bans in California—but it should also be noted that these measures passed, thanks mostly to the Democrat political establishment that Wright continues to support, playing both sides to his advantage. Besides, since when is occasionally keeping your oath and doing what is right something we treat as heroic, as opposed to a standard of conduct that any one of us with self-respect should keep as a matter of course?

NRA tells us we “could not ask for a better friend.†Of course we could. 31 of “Captain Freedom’s†Assembly colleagues had superior GOC ratings, including 11 who earned scores of 100%—yet Wright was the ONLY ONE NRA gave an A+ rating to in 2000.

No doubt the argument can be made that he is an improvement over the other members of the LA Council, that he is someone who has backed pro-gun bills in the past, and that he has shown a willingness to work with gun owners and heed their concerns on occasion. Having such a member in city government filled with arch-enemies could provide valuable access gun owners currently do not have, and the relationship could also pay off during Council debates and votes.

These are all arguments that can be presented without treating gun owners like idiot children incapable of grasping political complexities. Perhaps supporting Mr. Wright’s candidacy would produce more advantages than trade-offs. But we’ll never know if we’re manipulated with fabricated hype that masks his record. Why not trust us with the whole truth? Why present a demonstrably flawed politician as some kind of heroic champion of liberty?

That “Captain Freedom†has occasionally voted correctly and enjoys a cordial relationship with NRA lobbyists needs to be weighed against his overall performance on the gun issue. How can anyone look at his record—in contrast to NRA management's gushing words—and escape the conclusion that a "Major Deception" is being perpetrated?

The question is, why is the NRA doing this? And will gun owners continue putting up with it?



David Codrea is a co-founder and director for the national pro-rights media campaign, Citizens of America (CitizensOfAmerica.org), and an advisor and contributor for KeepAndBearArms.com. His professional writing is featured often in Guns and Ammo magazine. Additionally, he is the national coordinator for A Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment (KeepAndBearArms.com/Petition). His archives can be accessed here: KeepAndBearArms.com/Codrea.

 

[Hawkman]

The NRA doesn't know it's rear end from a hole in the ground. Here in Georgia they backed Democrat Roy Barnes in the governors race simply because he was the incumbent and the pundits said the (very pro-gun) challenger had no chance. Challenger wins, NRA has lost its credibility and ifluence.

They have become just like the politicians we despise.

 

[Jim March]

OK, now I'm pissed.

Let's be very clear here: Wright *IS* our friend, the most consistent and effective we've ever had in California, rivalled only by state Senator Ray Haynes. It's gonna take me hours to dissect this utter garbage and I'll try and finish tonight but Wright has been fighting on our side for years, tirelessly. Codrea's article is just flat-out evil in it's distortions and half-truths.



Assemblyman Wright is the gent with a bit more of a tan. The paler one is me .

 

[Blackhawk]

Sic 'em, Jim!

Looking forward to your dissection of this!

 

[Jackanape]

Jim, I too am interested in your take on what Codrea wrote. As I don't know all of the facts in this case, it would be good to hear from both sides. The only thing in Codrea's article I know to be the truth is thst L.A. councilman Dennis Zine is all for banning the .50 BMG (at least that's what he wrote when I emailed him to ask why he would vote for such a thing).

Please let us know what's up Jim. I'd hate to not have all the facts on this one...

 

[Jackanape]

-Bump-

I'd really like to hear more about Rod Wright, as Codrea's article is obviously slanted against Wright. Does anybody know if Codrea's venom is justified or not? Enquiring minds want to know...

 

[Ebbtide]

So, who is Codrea for? It does not sound like he did his homework.

You just can't win with this croud

that he is someone who has backed pro-gun bills in the past, and that he has shown a willingness to work with gun owners and heed their concerns on occasion. QUOTE]

It’s true that Rod Wright has come through for gun owners in the past on some important votes, notably in his opposition to the “assault weapons†bans in California

That “Captain Freedom†has occasionally voted correctly and enjoys a cordial relationship with NRA lobbyists

No doubt the argument can be made that he is an improvement over the other members of the LA Council,

Sounds like quite an accomplisment in California. Don't assembly men represent all of their constituants (sp?) or are they just supposed to represent the gunnies?

I guess in Kali they kick the gift horse in the mouth.

:banghead:

ehenz

 

[Jim March]

Let's talk about Rod Wright.

Some of the criticism David came up with involves AB2022, which was passed in late 1998 and took effect 1/1/99. It was a package of modest CCW reform measures.

First, understand that Rico Oller's previous attempt at genuine shall-issue CCW had gone forward in 1997, stalled for that year, then died in committee early in 1998. Around September or October of 1997, the Assembly Public Safety Committee convened a special hearing on the subject of CCW; Texas legislator Suzanne Gratia-Hupp flew out from Texas and spoke strongly on our side, as did Professor John Lott. Among the speakers from the audience putting in five minutes at a time was me, making my first trip to Sacramento ever.

Wright was a member of that committee, and had been a driving force pushing for both CCW and setting up that special hearing. He appeared despite a recently badly broken leg in a giant cast - the dude could barely hobble around at all. He was easily our strongest voice of support for reform among the legislators present.

In early '98 when it was clear shall-issue was dead, Wright put together AB2022 in order to get at least some sort of reform. And while various attempts to either twist AB2022 in committee or even turn it into an anti-gun bill were put forth, all such efforts finally failed and the bill we eventually got was well worth having.

First point: AB2022 didn't cost us any rights or dollars or anything else, except for one thing I'll cover in the first item below. There was ZERO practical downside.

For reference, AB2022 affected Penal Codes 12050-12054, which can be viewed online at: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/thelaw.html

The net effects of the final version:

1) Fees were CAPPED at $100. Prior to this, counties could pass "local cost recovery ordinances" of whatever the hell they wanted, and it was the sheriffs who (then as now) issue over 99% of all the permits statewide. Granted, the police departments had been capped at $3 previously so yes, in 1% of the cases the max fee rose from $3 to $100. However, remember that the best permit-issuing police chief we EVER had was Eugene Byrd of Isleton, and in order to politically support broad issuance he was charging $150.

The $3 cap against police chiefs only was a recent, very politicized by AG Lungren move against Chief Byrd and by allowing chiefs to charge $100 under AB2022, Wright was ensuring the possible future rise of another "Gene Byrd" down the road because no city council would ever allow a chief to do widespread issuance if it cost the city money on every permit!

Some pro-gun sheriffs are charging well under $100.

2) Training was capped at 16 hours, or 24 if the agency used a low-cost program through the community colleges. Again, this was a maximum versus a minimum, same as the fees.

3) The single best feature was Penal Code 12054(d), which effectively limited ALL fees, for anything:

------------
Except as authorized pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), no requirement, charge, assessment, fee, or condition that requires the payment of any additional funds by the applicant may be imposed by any licensing authority as a condition of the application for a license.
------------

Then there's 12050(g):

-------------
(g) Nothing in this article shall preclude the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city from entering an agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is located for the sheriff to process all applications for licenses, renewals of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this article.
-------------

"G" is possibly the slickest part of the whole thing. By using the term "all", it prevents police chiefs from sending only a select portion of their applicants off to the sheriff and telling everybody else they're screwed. This is one of the most common ways people get hosed.

In original form, Wright wanted to give people more choices in who they could apply to, so he came up with "employment based issuance". But that got twisted around into uselessness, a "90 day temporary permit" process that so far as I'm aware, has *never* been used. Oh well.

12050.2 was added:

------------
Within three months of the effective date of the act adding this section, each licensing authority shall publish and make available a written policy summarizing the provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 12050.
------------

This was my personal favorite. In effect, it forces local agencies to come up with written policy manuals documenting how they plan on applying the "good cause" and "good character" to us poor saps. Once they've written those, they can be sued if they pile on requirements past that! Example: Sheriff Blanas of Sacramento has told people he won't issue to 'em if they're SacCity residents claiming that the SacCity chief asked this of him, even though Blanas' policy manual says nothing about that "requirement" and neither does the policy manual for the SacCity PD. Believe me, we're gonna run that up their tushies sideways.

There didn't used to be any time limits on the process, but under AB2022:

-------------
12052.5. The licensing authority shall give written notice to the applicant indicating if the license is approved or denied within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or a license renewal or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later.
--------------

12051(c) prevents us from being buried in paperwork:

--------------
An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional application or form for a license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete the standard application form described in subparagraph (A), except to clarify or interpret information provided by the applicant on the standard application form.
--------------

Granted, there is a provision in AB2022 allowing agencies to send you to a shrink. But they could anyways, and a few were. 2022 capped the fees at such a low rate ($150), agencies can send you for psychological evaluation only if they chipped in part of the money! As a result, shrink tests for CCW are now rare, and less common than they were prior to 2022’s passage.

And finally, 12051 included a provision for setting up a single standard CCW app form across the state:

--------------
(3) (A) Applications for amendments to licenses, applications for licenses, amendments to licenses, and licenses shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall convene a committee composed of one representative of the California State Sheriffs' Association, one representative of the California Police Chiefs' Association, and one representative of the Department of Justice to develop a standard application form for licenses. The application shall include a section summarizing the statutory provisions of state law that result in the automatic denial of a license. The Attorney General shall adopt and implement this standard application form for licenses on or before July 1, 1999.

(B) The forms shall contain a provision whereby the applicant attests to the truth of statements contained in the application.

(C) An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional application or form for a license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete the standard application form described in subparagraph (A), except to clarify or interpret information provided by the applicant on the standard application form.

(D) The Attorney General may adopt and enforce regulations that are necessary, appropriate, or useful to interpret and implement this paragraph pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Pending the adoption of those regulations, the Attorney General may adopt emergency regulations that shall become effective immediately. The adoption of the emergency regulations shall be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and the emergency regulations shall only be effective until June 30, 1999, or on the effective date of the regulations adopted by the Attorney General to implement this paragraph, whichever occurs first, at which time the emergency regulations shall be deemed to be repealed.
--------------

Now, this looks more complex than it is.

Many local agencies did CCW application forms that were just beyond belief, involving any manner of weird violations of privacy. The state-standard form gave us "one single target" to deal with instead of 350+.

The stuff in there about "Section 11340" means that in order to make any real tweaks to the application process, the California DOJ was forced to follow a set of rules on creating "regulations", including public notice, comment and challenge.

True, when Cal-DOJ got feedback in on the form's design from some very crooked top cops, they screwed it all up. But when I finally confronted 'em on it last year, top Cal-DOJ officials agreed it had been screwed up, agreed that the public notice/comment/publication process hadn't been followed at all, and last I heard were in the process of fixing the form. Meanwhile I'm going ahead and suing 'em over it just on general principles.

The point here is that AB2022 gave us the ability to get involved in the process, which previously was 350 isolated totally private processes. What AB2022 eventually gave us was damaged by corrupt officials but remains fixable due to Wright's language.

Upshot: David Codrea's portrayal of AB2022 as being a gun control bill is pure slander, 100% wrong and pisses me off more than anything else that's appeared on KABA. If I was Rod Wright, I'd sue Shamaya and Codrea for libel.

So what else has Wright done?

Wright was responsible for shutting down somewhere around 1/4 of the gun control bills during Davis' first term, because Wright had Davis' ear when nobody else in the gun rights movement did.

Wright has ALWAYS voted pro-gun. Always. Yes, at times he's dabbled in Democratic party politics but unless you *know* what it takes to survive in office, I would submit it'd be wrong to judge him.

By Codrea's and Shamaya's standards, if a politician votes our way plus is active in sponsoring and supporting pro-gun measures, he still can't gain our support unless every single word he speaks in public and every single endorsement also goes our way.

Well that's nuts. If all pro-gun politicians were held to that standard, NONE would have any incentive to back us because NOT ONE OF 'EM COULD STAY IN OFFICE!!!

Gawd almighty, guys! If you REALLY want to throw all of our supporters out of office, fine, say so! But DO NOT slander somebody by calling AB2022 a "gun control measure".

It's garbage reports like this that have degraded KABA's ability to complain about *legitimate* problems by the NRA. Of the entire gaggle of anti-NRA crap KABA has spewed over the last few years, only a small number have had any basis in reality. All they've succeeded in doing is expose their gross biases and left them crippled whenever they have REAL complaints - such genuine complaints get lost in the general sorry propaganda tirade.

What really bugs me is that there’s people out there polishing their guns but avoiding all political activity because “there’s no hope, all politics and politicians are screwed up and we’re gonna hafta shoot ‘em all eventually anyways†. The Codrea/Shamaya/Puckett cabal plays right into that “thinking†all too often.

It’s flat out wrong. You CAN fight city hall.

With allies like these, we don't need enemies.

Jim

 

[Pointman]

That's a great write up Jim. Thanks!

 

[Jim March]

Bumping this, because I took so long getting to it...

 

[B9mmHP]

You a cool dude Jim. Keep kicking butt.

I wish every state in our Republic had a Jim March.

 

[chaim]

I wish every state in our Republic had a Jim March

I couldn't agree more, especially in places like MD, NY, NJ, IL, etc.

 

[Jim March]

Maryland contains my best student, our own Kharn:

http://www.chesapeake.net/~mcfadden/ccw/

He's doing GOOD, too...just had some private EMail with him. Dude rocks . Seriously, he's doing everything right...can't talk about all of it just yet.

 

[chaim]

So Jim between what you know and what Kharn and others like him are doing how long do you think it is before MD gets CCW? I actually think it is a possibility but probably 3-5 years out.

 

[Jim March]

I can't talk about the MD situation in TOO much detail because that's Kharn's thing. I may have referred to him partly in jest as my "student" but HE is in command of his own efforts there, and I can't divulge things he's involved in too soon.

In very broad terms, he has to do the following:

1) Collect evidence of dirt, and write it up. He's well on his way, see also: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=79907

2) Get it into the public eye (Washington Times comes to mind!);

3) Hope somebody can get to that new somewhat pro-gun Governor they've got, and get HIM to realize there's racism/corruption in the system, and back reform on that basis.

There's all kinds of "sub-steps" in that which he's either planning or doing. That's the QUICK plan, because it bypasses the courts. Court action cannot be ruled out either at some point but given the overall political situation in MD, I suspect the fast route runs through the Governor's office and into the legislature.

I'll tell you this, he's advancing faster than I was at first. That's partly because I flailed around with no guidance for a couple years, and partially because he's only got one agency to go up against versus the 350+ I've got plus I've got Cthulu's kid brother for a governor .