An Honest Rating System

As an NRA member and a brand-new Floridacarry member, I believe that the latter should win out when it comes to power and the ability to influence votes. This is achievable in the following manner (and I don't know if it's already in place; if so, please direct me to the link):

Floridacarry, along with this forum, needs to come up with an A+ through F rating system of its own: one that's honest with the voters about the candidates' stances -- one that asks the tough questions. It's obvious that the NRA has failed us when it's handing out A grades to Bogdanoff and others who have betrayed us. As a former teacher and now a professor, I believe the F should be employed sparingly, but if someone deserves it, they should get it.

The point is: we need a grading system that is going to be working for voters rather than misleading them. If somebody took a very long time to convince (as was the case with my own Senator, unbeknownst to me), then the grade should reflect this. Alerts should be sent out whenever things like this happen, so that the public can be made aware. The grades have to be sent to the press, to the legislators, to the NRA leadership, and in order to be solid, they probably need to include explanations detailing why this particular legislator (who was once an A) has had his or her grade dropped.

The explanations should be left on the website, while the shortlists themselves must be mailed to the press, published online, sent to the NRA (as a request for them to "correct" their own lists), and used for campaign purposes: an endorsement from an organization known for its thorough research and honesty will win out in the eyes of gun voters (and there are plenty of those). When an organization with an honest rating system backs a candidate, it will win out every single time over an organization that hands out A's willy-nilly based on promises and speculation.

The fact that a candidate claims to be pro-rights, an NRA member, and a "hunter since [he] was a child" can no longer cut it; it can no longer win endorsements; instead, the tough questions need to be asked, answered, backed up by action, and refuted by sheer fact. Many of us already have the answers to a grading system for most of our legislators; we just need to put our proposals out here and coincide on grades for the aforesaid.

Someone spit out the list, and let's get to work. Senate first and house second. Thoughts?

Edit (5/16/2011) -- OK, we don't have a preliminary Senate list with names and grades. Here is mine based on what I've researched and witnessed (along with your suggestions underneath). This is, of course, subject to change upon evidence, and will ultimately be sent to EVERYONE. Help me get this list right:

P.S: I need clarification for all the above and some educated answers for these:
Benacquisito, Lizbeth (R27)
Gaetz, Don (R4) --
Gardiner, Andy (R9) –
Storms,Ronda (R10)
Wise, Stephen R. (R5)

THE LIST (for now)

JD Alexander (R17) –

Altman, Thad(R24) --

Benacquisito, Lizbeth (R27)

Bennett, Michael S. “Mike” (R21) –

Bogdanoff, Ellyn Setnor (R25) –

Braynon II, Oscar (D33) --

Bullard, Larcenia J. (D39) –

Dean, Charles S. “Charlie,” Sr. (R3) –

Detert, Nancy C. (R23) –

Diaz de la Portilla (R36) –

Dockery, Paula (R15) –

Evers, Greg (R2) –

Fasano, Mike (R11) --

Flores, Anitere (R38) –

Gaetz, Don (R4) --

Garcia, Rene (R40) –

Gardiner, Andy (R9) --

Haridopolos, Mike (R26) –

Hays, Alan (R20) –

Hill, Anthony C. “Tony,” Sr. (D1) –

Jones, Dennis L., D.C. (R13) –

Joyner, Arthenia L. (D18) –

Latvala, Jack (R16) –

Lynn, Evelyn J. (R7) –

Margolis, Gwen (D35) –

Montford, Bill (D6) –


Negron, Joe (R28) –

Norman, Jim (R12) –

Oelrich, Steve (R14) –

Rich, Nan (R34) –

Richter, Garrett (R37) –

Ring, Jeremy (R32) –

Sachs, Maria Lorts (D30) –

Simmons, David (R22) –


Siplin, Gary (D19) –

Smith, Christopher L. “Chris” (R29) –

Sobel, Eleanor (D31) –

Storms,Ronda (R10)

Thrasher, John (R8) –


Wise, Stephen R. (R5)

Sounds like a plan.

I'd say the original sponsors all get A's. The originals were for licensed OC including in college campuses. Altman is on record for unlicensed OC so he gets an A+. All democrats get D's or F's except possibly Anthony Hill.

Same in the House with the original sponsors. Tobia suggested he favored unlicensed OC and he also voted against the Doctor bill so that demonstrates an advanced appreciation for liberty, for a politician. He might deserve an A+. Abruzzo is an "A" democrat. Julien and Soto are at least "B"s.

77zach said:

I'd say the original sponsors all get A's. The originals were for licensed OC including in college campuses. Altman is on record for unlicensed OC so he gets an A+. All democrats get D's or F's except possibly Anthony Hill.

Same in the House with the original sponsors. Tobia suggested he favored unlicensed OC and he also voted against the Doctor bill so that demonstrates an advanced appreciation for liberty, for a politician. He might deserve an A+. Abruzzo is an "A" democrat. Julien and Soto are at least "B"s.

Click to expand...

Perhaps originally,but where the bill end up in the end? What resistance was offered,really,to prevent the outcome we now have? Its one thing to demonstrate an intent-(genuine or otherwise) another to carry through with it, and resist opposition to the fullest possible extent.Did any of these folks,once their bill was mauled beyond recognition,vote NO to the version it became?
THAT would have been the true revelation of intent.

j4l said:

Perhaps originally,but where the bill end up in the end? What resistance was offered,really,to prevent the outcome we now have? Its one thing to demonstrate an intent-(genuine or otherwise) another to carry through with it, and resist opposition to the fullest possible extent.Did any of these folks,once their bill was mauled beyond recognition,vote NO to the version it became?
THAT would have been the true revelation of intent.

Click to expand...

Right, but the targets are those who will vote against OC, not those who went along to get along when there was no chance of OC getting through. We will never be powerful enough to replace everyone with Ron Paul clones. No sense in alienating people who will vote for or sponsor our bill.

77zach said:

Right, but the targets are those who will vote against OC, not those who went along to get along when there was no chance of OC getting through. We will never be powerful enough to replace everyone with Ron Paul clones. No sense in alienating people who will vote for or sponsor our bill.

Click to expand...

But there's my real question. How do we trust/know for sure, which ones truly will vote in our favor-based on recent actions? Maybe its just me, but my faith/trust/whatever you want to call it,is diminished in the extreme for this lot.
It's becoming difficult to determine which ones truly are behind such a thing,and which ones say they are, propose a bill to sort of "show" they are, then shrug and walk off when the expected opposition from the usual suspects who openly oppose such things arise.
The shrug and walk off bit, puts me off as much as the open opposition. Brings them,in my book, back down to at least a C.

j4l said:

But there's my real question. How do we trust/know for sure, which ones truly will vote in our favor-based on recent actions? Maybe its just me, but my faith/trust/whatever you want to call it,is diminished in the extreme for this lot.
It's becoming difficult to determine which ones truly are behind such a thing,and which ones say they are, propose a bill to sort of "show" they are, then shrug and walk off when the expected opposition from the usual suspects who openly oppose such things arise.
The shrug and walk off bit, puts me off as much as the open opposition. Brings them,in my book, back down to at least a C.

Click to expand...

We have people on this forum or on Florida carry throughout the state. We can go to Rep offices and give them a questionnaire on gun rights. There are 3 reps in close proximity to me. In my case I know they all support OC, with 2 of them being cosponsors of the original HB 517. If they're willing to go on the record for OC then we can be reasonably sure they will vote for us if we get a bill sponsored.

Hope so.

77zach said:

I'd say the original sponsors all get A's. The originals were for licensed OC including in college campuses. Altman is on record for unlicensed OC so he gets an A+. All democrats get D's or F's except possibly Anthony Hill.

Same in the House with the original sponsors. Tobia suggested he favored unlicensed OC and he also voted against the Doctor bill so that demonstrates an advanced appreciation for liberty, for a politician. He might deserve an A+. Abruzzo is an "A" democrat. Julien and Soto are at least "B"s.

Click to expand...

Tobia and Altman are both my reps. All I can do is ask for their continued support.

Though I do not like the idea that not one stood in opposition to the amendment the second go round but how far to fault is the question.

I think this is an excellent idea, we need them on record and a survey is the way to go.

I think this is a great idea, and I would like to expand it to include the federal senators and representatives. We need to protect out rights at all levels.

Mike

This is awesome. I think we got our list just about done, at least for the Senators. What we need is the power of someone like Ixtow to put these together in a list (as he did with "SB 234, The Final Countdown"); furthermore, we need to check their respective NRA ratings and contrast them with our own. We need the force. Lol.

We also need StogieC's input regarding whether he would like Floridacarry's rating system to vary from the NRA's own, and whether he would like a consensus input (such as ours) for the legislators.

I'm holding back a bit and waiting to see what FloridaCarry.org does. I like to fill in the blanks and that's hard to do if I don't know what they are. I want to be complimentary, not adversarial.

I was working on some FOIA data for the LEOs who lobbied on the Taxpayer's dime. However, it seems that only State money paid out by the Legislators is off-limits. the only way that such documentation would exist, is if they intentionally exposed themselves. According to State Statutes, the LEOs are allowed to spend all the County/City money/resources they want, any time they want, any way they want.

While it might create some minor public outcry to show exactly how much taxpayer money and resources they used to lobby against the rights of those same taxpayers, I doubt anything criminal will be uncovered. Not to mention the cost. The documentation on their expenditures and resource usage costs more to photocopy than my current life savings.

Aw,cmon-clash already!
Lol. how's the holster-bit working out,so far?

j4l said:

Aw,cmon-clash already!
Lol. how's the holster-bit working out,so far?

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, it's a total dud. I've worn my P38 holster everywhere. Nobody says a thing, no cops, nothing... Weird.

Lol. aw,man I was hoping for at least some "oops" moments-on their part.
But it goes back to what I was saying back when the bill was just still a discussion-and everyone was freaking out thinking we were going to be pounced upon by LEOs the moment we strapped openly.
It's Florida, not NY not NJ, no matter how many invaders are here. Most folks wont even give OC a second-glance. Including LEOS.

ixtow said:

I'm holding back a bit and waiting to see what FloridaCarry.org does. I like to fill in the blanks and that's hard to do if I don't know what they are. I want to be complimentary, not adversarial.

I was working on some FOIA data for the LEOs who lobbied on the Taxpayer's dime. However, it seems that only State money paid out by the Legislators is off-limits. the only way that such documentation would exist, is if they intentionally exposed themselves. According to State Statutes, the LEOs are allowed to spend all the County/City money/resources they want, any time they want, any way they want.

While it might create some minor public outcry to show exactly how much taxpayer money and resources they used to lobby against the rights of those same taxpayers, I doubt anything criminal will be uncovered. Not to mention the cost. The documentation on their expenditures and resource usage costs more to photocopy than my current life savings.

Click to expand...

FOIA covers the phone calls made to and from the legislators' blackberries. It also covers the contacts. I attempted to get these after a candidate I aided lost a pretty rigged election due to a city ordinance that does not allow campaigning in section 8 housing (but does allow the incumbents to "visit" the section 8 houses and hold "forums" with the elderly/poor folks in order to "instruct" them on how to vote): anybody here ever heard of a beautiful "promised land" named Hialeah? That's it.

The city sent me an invoice for $1160, and a stack of meaningless and jumbled paperwork. It was a veritable puzzle, so don't spend your own money on it.

This is how they keep it all secret.... Price it out of reach, just like the so-called Justice System.

Jojo712 said:

FOIA covers the phone calls made to and from the legislators' blackberries. It also covers the contacts. I attempted to get these after a candidate I aided lost a pretty rigged election due to a city ordinance that does not allow campaigning in section 8 housing (but does allow the incumbents to "visit" the section 8 houses and hold "forums" with the elderly/poor folks in order to "instruct" them on how to vote): anybody here ever heard of a beautiful "promised land" named Hialeah? That's it.

The city sent me an invoice for $1160, and a stack of meaningless and jumbled paperwork. It was a veritable puzzle, so don't spend your own money on it.

Click to expand...

Actually, how long ago was this? Under Scott's Open Government policy, things are supposed to be getting streamlined re FoiA.

j4l said:

Actually, how long ago was this? Under Scott's Open Government policy, things are supposed to be getting streamlined re FoiA.

Click to expand...

About a year ago. Good Ole Gov'na Scott's plan still (even if signed during this session) still hasn't fixed its way down to us, in all likelihood.

You guys know I always wake up in the middle of the night, so what I'm doing is I'm getting my own list together and throwing what appears to be the forum's consensus grade on the particular Senator (for now, we can do the house next week); I'll include bare-bones facts, such as "A - sponsor of the original bill, but caved during the vote (Evers and who else?)"; "A+ - sponsor of the original bill who is also in favor of unlicensed OC), etc. The list should also leave some space for whosoever may be running against an incumbent, and the grade that that incumbent should receive.

Again, we're doing this with the spirit of trying to aid the organizations and the press in getting their stories straight; if this list remains unbacked, it can serve as a reference tool for any organization to check their list against ours, and to either call us "the fringe" or to get on the Foxtrot-ting bus.

The list is ready in a bit, along with the preliminary grades that appear to be consensus grades, thusfar. They are, of course, subject to change and evidence (but we can keep track of the changes and why until a real organization decides to take over the list).

I'm back in an hour. I'll likely post the list at first or second of my posts, so it can stay in the first page.