Proof that Ca's DOJ is working with the anti-gun front ?

[bg]

Here appears to be documents showing that at least one
employee of the DOJ has been involved with those
at the Brady Campaign regarding OLL's. From
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71 site. >

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2022&d=1164248071
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2023&d=1164248155
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2024&d=1164248321
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2025&d=1164248374
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2026&d=1164249234
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2027&d=1164249278

Now this is from a person who is suppose to represent
ALL the people of California, not just those who hate
firearms. Where is the unbiased justice that is suppose
to be adhered to ? In fact in one of the documents above
we are referred to as "gun nuts"..!! This is an outrage
that we're so pointedly discriminated against.

How can we as law abiding gun owners-enthusiasts
trust the Dept of Justice in Ca when things like this
are going on ?

Thanks to members over at Calguns for the heads up
and links.

 

[FTF]

Crap, I have to be logged in. Any way to paraphrase?

 

[striker3]

It is six pages of email correspondence between a Deputy AG in CA and members of the anti-gun community discussing upcoming strategy about how to deal with the Off List Lower actions currently taking place.

 

[FTF]

And this changes the opinion that they are working for your protection how?

 

[crazed_ss]

Well.. I used to be sort of an optimist. I always figured that the DOJ was just that.. Department of Justice. I always hoped they enforced laws like the Assault Weapon Ban simply because that is their job... not because they are neccessarily anti-gun.

Now it's digustingly apparent that they truly do have an agenda and I was completely wrong. The DOJ employee refers to guys on the calguns boards as "gun nuts" and from the tone of the letter, it almost seems like they're taking pleasure in messing with law-abiding gun owners.

From those emails, we can see that they're clearly working with anti-gun groups to enact new regulations and/or legislation.

Im wondering if that's even legal.. sigh

 

[Old Fuff]

How can we as law abiding gun owners-enthusiasts trust the Dept of Justice in Ca when things like this are going on ?

Obviously you can't trust them, but that's not new news. This has been the case in California for a long, long time, and it's not likely to change for the better in the foreseeable future. That's why I live east of the CA. border. What you guys stand for I wouldn't.

 

[Kruzr]

The e-mails in question. AM is a deputy AG in the Cali. DOJ. She is the one who believes a pistol grip on a rifle allows one to spray ammo easier than a ranch type grip.

As you can see in the e-mails, the anti's read the gun boards........or the "gun nut" boards as they call them.

 

[Kruzr]

One more e-mail:

 

[Molon Labe]

Gun owners still live in California?

 

[FTF]

I got to the third word document and felt physically sick to my stomach.

The bias against firearms enthusiasts is apparent. How can any law enforcement organization operate based on innuendo and personal agendas? There is no 'law' there.. only their own law I guess, which supercedes your own version... since we all know the guys from calguns.net are gunning down cops in the streets and selling drugs. Good job CDOJ... it's easier to pick on people who listen to the law and try to obey it rather than those who break it on a whim and piss on the very oath you swore to uphold.

Job well done... thank god cali has them in charge. All you can really do is vote. Vote them all out of office and distribute those emails to EVERYONE you possibly can. I'll do my part in Georgia... luckily, the names are there.

I think I'm going to start my own little letter writing initiative.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

It's even worse. They are consulting with Project Concern: http://www.projectconcern.org/ . What's wrong with that? A whole bunch of things. First of all, Project Concern are dishonest. Their site talks about all kinds of health stuff, not a word about gun control. So why are they so busy lobbying for gun control and technical details of CA's AWB? Everyone knows the AWB has nothing to do with health or safety. No one is being killed by OLLs. No one is being killed by registered AWs. Project Concern is obviously lying about what it is on its website. The second problem with Project Concern is that this guy they are consulting with isn't even in the US! What is going on with the CA DoJ consulting with someone outside the US about gun law enforcement?

This shows the levels of sliminess and dishonesty in the gun banner networks. It also shows how much attention they are paying to such trivial and idiotic things as this useless AWB. How do they get access to people so high up in the DoJ? What happened there?

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Oh it's even funnier. Project Concern says, in their mission statement, their principles are:

Accountability: We implement programs with meaningful, concrete, and measurable results. We set clear goals and track our progress. We hold ourselves fully accountable to our donors and those we serve.

Um, let's see, I looked over their entire site and it said not a single thing about gun control, assault weapons technical consulting, lobbying the DoJ. Almost everything they talk about is aid to third world countries. They look spooky. They have all these staff members and directors and aid goals and whatever but it's not clear from their site what they actually do. Do they send trucks of food to Africa? Do they write checks to third world dictators? Obviously they are engaged in lobbying far outside their charter, which they don't mention at all. Where's the accountability there, Project Concern?

 

[Zoogster]

Well.. I used to be sort of an optimist. I always figured that the DOJ was just that.. Department of Justice. I always hoped they enforced laws like the Assault Weapon Ban simply because that is their job... not because they are neccessarily anti-gun.

Government is all anti gun. The bigger it grows the more so it becomes. California is the largest state government in the US to my knowledge, therefore it is naturaly going to be the most anti gun.
Guns preserve the status quo and require slow acceptance by at least most citizens as it would be hazardous to rapidly change multiple things in disagreement with armed people. It also means you have to individualy target dissent with 'SWAT' style teams which is only feasible if the number you have to do that to is low. So your limited to less radical changes, or changes that progress slowly over time.
Government quite naturaly wants to feel as comfortable in freely governing without concern of excess scrutiny by armed people as possible.
If you are tasked with governing sheep, the less danger they pose the quicker and easier it is to do what you feel is best regardless of how they feel about it.
Governments like numbers, statistics, easily controllable calculated outcomes..its all part of governing. Things like armed sheep create a sense of instability for the shepherd.
You cannot blame government for wishing everyone to be disarmed. As a leader many choices you make are going to be liked by some and hated by some. Knowing there is people that have the tools to kill you make you uneasy. If you could take away those tools from everyone you could rest easier that when you piss them off your not in danger. You can also then make whatever radical policy changes you wish with less burden.

This was understood by our founding fathers and this is why they felt it was necessary to safeguard such human rights. They knew that the desire of government to be comfortable was detrimental to the rights and liberty of the people if not safeguarded over the long term by listing inalienable rights that could not be logicly governed out of existence by those in power.

 

[FTF]

I'm not sure if you guys from CA expect us to sympathize with you, take up arms or what.

Obviously, you all didn't vote these guys into office... obviously. BUT, the vast majority of the people in your state must agree with these tactics, or else they would not be representing the locals in such a way.

What can we, non-Californians, do to support you? I doubt emails to D. Feinstein from some guy in Georgia are going to be read, let alone counted. Maybe I should move to CA to fight these laws? Not likely. Seriously, what can I do to help, considering I'm already a member of the NRA. Maybe I'm just supposed to realize how "bad" things could get? I get it loud and clear lol!

 

[SnakeEater]

Either take up arms or move. That is your choice. If you CHOOSE to live in a state full of illegals and liberals don't complain to those of us who live elsewhere. You are welcome to join us.

I know, I know. I've got my career, mortgage, and family here. Hey bud, freedom ain't free. It's not my intention to come across as a jerk, but I don't see things improving in Kali, ever.

 

[kungfuhippie]

but I don't see things improving in Kali, ever.

yes they will. In 10 million years the san andreas fault will have shifted enough to make 1/2 of california move north to alaska. the liberal west half. dumping half of the state into the sea will be a big improvement

 

[Jim March]

Yeah, we have a problem here connected to Luis Tolley.

Tolley has been an anti-self-defense activist for a LONG time, former "Western Regional Director" of Handgun Control Inc, stayed with them through the transition to the "Brady brand-name".

What's he doing in Australia? Are anti-gun resources being funneled out of country to avoid the whole issue? Were any lobbying forms submitted at the California SecState's office? (Yes, this is necessary to lobby a state agency if the amount of lobbying is significant.)

Are there rules on out-of-country lobbying in California? I don't know...but I'm damned curious to find out Friday.

We're going to need the 990s from this bunch. At first glance I'm not seeing any indication as to which tax status they are, if any. Very interesting.

We'll need to run the members of the board through google searches for links to Brady, Handgun control, etc. I'll make a start tomorrow. We'll need to take PDF snapshots of key pages for "Project Concern" including that board list, mission statement, "contact us" page just for starters. Anybody have Acrobat Writer and can post the PDF snapshots as attachments to this thread? Make sure the page "printouts" have date and time stamps on 'em.

What else...ah! Whois:

-------
Domain ID: D6278812-LROR
Domain NameROJECTCONCERN.ORG
Created On:06-May-1999 08:16:55 UTC
Last Updated On:05-Oct-2005 19:32:47 UTC
Expiration Date:06-May-2010 08:15:14 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:29139026-NSI
Registrant Nameroject Concern International
Registrant Organizationroject Concern International
Registrant Street1:5151 Murphy Canyon Rd
Registrant Street2:Suite 320
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:San Diego
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:92123
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8582799690
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.8586940294
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:[email protected]
Admin ID:29139027-NSI
Admin Nameroject Concern International
Admin Organizationroject Concern International
Admin Street1:5151 Murphy Canyon Rd
Admin Street2:Suite 320
Admin Street3:
Admin City:San Diego
Admin State/Province:CA
Admin Postal Code:92123
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.8582799690
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.8586940294
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:[email protected]
Tech ID:29139027-NSI
Tech Nameroject Concern International
Tech Organizationroject Concern International
Tech Street1:5151 Murphy Canyon Rd
Tech Street2:Suite 320
Tech Street3:
Tech City:San Diego
Tech State/Province:CA
Tech Postal Code:92123
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.8582799690
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.8586940294
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:[email protected]
Name Server:NS.CONSOLE.NET
Name Server:NS2.CONSOLE.NET
-------

Registration looks clean...

BUT you don't hire Luis Tolley without *knowing* he's going to get involved in gun control. Let's see how fishy these clowns are. I smell blood.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Go Jim!

The international lobbying angle... that is just stinky and bad.

Wait, I wonder if that guy is buddies with our other favorite Aussie, Rebecca Peters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Peters)?

What a corrupt organization that is. To talk about their mission of simple humanitarian and medical relief in third world countries, and then they get involved in lobbying the CA-DoJ on some very technical firearms issues.... totally outside their stated goals and charter.

 

[Zedicus]

Good work Jim, If you ask me this is way beyond fishy, you just may be onto something really big there.

 

[Jim March]

Well there's two hits when you do a google such as:

"Rebecca Peters" "luis tolley"

Both are connected to a 1999 conference.

Hmmmm.

International area code "62" is connected to Canberra Australia. Can we pin down Peters within Australia, or to a phone number? IANSA is supposedly centered in London, with Australian affialiates listed here:

http://www.iansa.org/about/members/pacific.htm

All are in area code 61, not 62. Huh.

This is going to take more digging.

Who here volunteers to take PDF snapshots of key websites? I'll navigate the California SecState website and see if there are any lobbying traces...

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

What's amazing is that a dying organization like the Brady Campaign can get that level of access.

And speaking of Rebecca Peters, what is also amazing is that she and her group has been funded by George Sorors. Surely someone who is a Holocaust survivor and a survivor of Soviet rule would have some clue that having an all-powerful government is not exactly the ideal way to protect the common man?

 

[Zedicus]

Who here volunteers to take PDF snapshots of key websites? I'll navigate the California SecState website and see if there are any lobbying traces...

Count me in, Just point me to what sites/pages you need the PDF's of, and give me an e-mail address to send them to.

I have a feeling this could help put the braidy camp out of business.
Just has a certain feel to it.....

 

[Zedicus]

And speaking of Rebecca Peters, what is also amazing is that she and her group has been funded by George Sorors. Surely someone who is a Holocaust survivor and a survivor of Soviet rule would have some clue that having an all-powerful government is not exactly the ideal way to protect the common man?

Who are we to be certain that he actually Learned that lesson?
"Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it"
is unfortunately a piece of wisdom that often goes overlooked...

 

[Kruzr]

FWIW, from Wikipedia:

Rebecca Peters is the Director[1] of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). As chair of the (Australian) National Coalition for Gun Control at the time of the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, Peters played a key role in the introduction of stricter gun control and gun confiscation, in Australia, an area in which she remains active today.

The Umut Foundation says:

Rebecca Peters was Chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control, which campaigned to tighten Australia's gun laws in the 1990s. Her research and advocacy helped bring about sweeping changes, including uniform gun laws across the eight states, a ban on semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and a year-long buyback that destroyed nearly 700,000 weapons. Among the awards she received was the 1996 Australian Human Rights Medal, her country's highest human rights honor.[2]

Prior to her work with IANSA, Peters worked for the Open Society Institute, a private foundation funded by George Soros.

She has been criticized by the National Rifle Association, which maintains that she, along with the United Nations, wishes to "strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection" via gun-ownership by "ban[ning] civilian ownership of firearms".[3][4] The UN maintains that it has no desire to attempt to outlaw gun ownership in any country.[5]

 

[dave_pro2a]

People knocking the CA members here should remember that California is a time machine...

It allows us to see about 10 years into the future. You may think your state is free now (ID, WA, OR, NH, FL, etc), but there's a national agenda in the works here. They will attack us all via state law, and via Federal law.

So pay more attention to what the kooks in CA are doing, and how they are doing it. Consider it writing on the wall and let it hopefully spur you to action in your own states.

$.02