VCDL - More P4P Than Ever!!!

[Tess]

As far as standing alone, I can assure you that we are not alone. There are many that fight the good fight and achieve all sorts of victories for liberty. It is OK for Philip and the VCDL Board if they choose the false path of P4P. It is still a mostly free country after all. Please do not, however, paint a false picture that we are alone or that we are abandoning gun rights. It is VCDL that is abandoning the hard path of fighting for our rights. It is VCDL that is instead choosing to graze in what they see as the greener pastures of P4P.

Not directing this only at Thundar, but this provides a usable starting point.

When did we begin to believe that people/organizations approaching issues in different manners are somehow "wrong"?

One need not always agree with VCDL's assessments, with their stance on some bills, or with the PAC's approach, to recognize the organization is doing good work, that without their efforts on behalf of gun owners over the years, we'd not be where we are today.

Certainly we need not all agree on any bill, whether gun-related or not. But when we begin denigrating others - people or organizations - who don't do things our way we become nothing but tantrum-throwing children who take their crayons and go home.

Is there really a down side to "I support this effort, but it doesn't go far enough ..."?

 

[peter nap]

Is there really a down side to "I support this effort, but it doesn't go far enough ..."?

No downside at all Tess because it seems it DID go far enough!

 

[Grapeshot]

Not directing this only at Thundar, but this provides a usable starting point.

When did we begin to believe that people/organizations approaching issues in different manners are somehow "wrong"?

One need not always agree with VCDL's assessments, with their stance on some bills, or with the PAC's approach, to recognize the organization is doing good work, that without their efforts on behalf of gun owners over the years, we'd not be where we are today.

Certainly we need not all agree on any bill, whether gun-related or not. But when we begin denigrating others - people or organizations - who don't do things our way we become nothing but tantrum-throwing children who take their crayons and go home.

Is there really a down side to "I support this effort, but it doesn't go far enough ..."?

Well said, Tess. A cohesive attitude and a tolerance for different approaches will hold us in good stead. Don't look for how we are different, observe how we are the same.

 

[Marco]

The owners of the site are free to remove comments they believe are out of line, no hard feelings if you do so.


Dues paying members of any org's have a an absolute right to express they dissatisfaction, and doing it on a social media site (hate calling ocdo social media) reaches a larger audience.
While only one person is the spokesperson for most org's the dues paying members are the driving force and if we don't make our concerns known things might never change.
I guess it's okay for an org's to stay silent / neutral about concerns dues paying members have expressed, even when they relate to the groups subject matter. Unfortunately, it's not okay for us to discuss or try to change that.

Though many of us didn't like or approve of some bills we still showed up, recruited others, got the word out and showed our support for the org. And are trying to organize efforts to help get a larger group for next year even before this session ends.

So, no we didn't take our ball and go home.

 

[peter nap]

The owners of the site are free to remove comments they believe are out of line, no hard feelings if you do so.


Dues paying members of any org's have a an absolute right to express they dissatisfaction, and doing it on a social media site (hate calling ocdo social media) reaches a larger audience.
While only one person is the spokesperson for most org's the dues paying members are the driving force and if we don't make our concerns known things might never change.
I guess it's okay for an org's to stay silent / neutral about concerns dues paying members have expressed, even when they relate to the groups subject matter. Unfortunately, it's not okay for us to discuss or try to change that.

Though many of us didn't like or approve of some bills we still showed up, recruited others, got the word out and showed our support for the org. And are trying to organize efforts to help get a larger group for next year even before this session ends.

So, no we didn't take our ball and go home.

No we didn't Marco...but some of us did take our crayons on a field trip. Quite honestly, I haven't messed in any gun legislation at all. I was absent...except the long gun bill. Tess said she was going to handle that fight after the election.

The problem with opposing a bill like that that the ORG has not only supported, but strongly supported, is you have to side with the very people that will oppose it. That being the anti's.

It's like releasing snakes to get rid of the rats under your house. The rats are gone but then you have to deal with the snakes.

VCDL did not listen to the membership and for that, is weaker. I'd have explained that to Tess but I just didn't see her at the GA that day.

But all is not lost. I saw in the Alerts that VCDL is neutral on Sunday Hunting. That's a good thing but damned if I don't need new glasses because try as I did, couldn't find any mention of it on the legislative agenda.

 

[solus]

observation from a southern neighbor who has witnessed our august grass roots organizational management systematically capitulate away with our GA, what I personally feel is a basic level of firearm governmental control, over their own selective agenda, such as getting automatic firearms statutes introduced and passed...

where is there any indication of your organizational membership is pushing the VCDL's board to facilitate the membership's wishes for the way your organization moves down the road with support of VA statutes?

from published conversations on this forum from our grass roots president he appears he doesn't give a rat's arse about what the membership wants and presses ahead on his selective agenda...wait, it sounded exactly like VCDL's posting out here...hummm!!

reading throughout this thread, i am hearing the same rhetoric i heard and continue to hear from our grass roots organizational management...

"we know best, we have/ had to do this, we are doing the best we can, and we are compromising as necessary to assure we make baby steps towards what we believe is best for you_______ (please fill in blank for your own right you are pushing)"

our membership is silent, for the most part, yes, there is a board, but everything decided is close hold and the membership is fed from the 'website' "here is what we are doing and you can thank us later".

At least it seems on the surface VCDL is far more open then our group, but ladies and gentlemen, i believe your membership needs to wake up and rally to assure the organizational management of your grass roots understands the path the membership wishes to follow, after thorough publicity and unemotional discussion of pro and con aspects so an informed decision can be made for your board to follow!

this commentary can begin with the contributors from this forum starting a viable publicity campaign to get the attention of the membership to voice their wishes to mgmt. something i wish could be facilitated locally.

btw, thanks for the open discussion it has been quite fascinating and enlightening...

ipse

 

[marshaul]

When did we begin to believe that people/organizations approaching issues in different manners are somehow "wrong"?

You give this stuff far too much credit; as though it's merely a somewhat-misguided pursuit of an intermediate goal in the name of compromise.

The VCDL side of this discussion is fraudulent, to be frank. Permits are not an intermediate step; as far as the VCDL is concerned they are "a fact of life". And why shouldn't they be, with so many profiteering on the abrogation of right?

Any P4P works against the interests of constitutional carry. Anything which makes permits easier to obtain, more functional or more convenient, works against the RKBA.

Folks who insist on pretending that these are "baby steps" down the same road are in denial about very fundamental aspects of human psychology.

Mark my words: Virginia will never obtain Constitutional Carry heading down the present path.

As usual, this discussion has left me completely disgusted.

 

[Thundar]

observation from a southern neighbor who has witnessed our august grass roots organizational management systematically capitulate away with our GA, what I personally feel is a basic level of firearm governmental control, over their own selective agenda, such as getting automatic firearms statutes introduced and passed...

where is there any indication of your organizational membership is pushing the VCDL's board to facilitate the membership's wishes for the way your organization moves down the road with support of VA statutes?

from published conversations on this forum from our grass roots president he appears he doesn't give a rat's arse about what the membership wants and presses ahead on his selective agenda...wait, it sounded exactly like VCDL's posting out here...hummm!!

reading throughout this thread, i am hearing the same rhetoric i heard and continue to hear from our grass roots organizational management...

"we know best, we have/ had to do this, we are doing the best we can, and we are compromising as necessary to assure we make baby steps towards what we believe is best for you_______ (please fill in blank for your own right you are pushing)"

our membership is silent, for the most part, yes, there is a board, but everything decided is close hold and the membership is fed from the 'website' "here is what we are doing and you can thank us later".

At least it seems on the surface VCDL is far more open then our group, but ladies and gentlemen, i believe your membership needs to wake up and rally to assure the organizational management of your grass roots understands the path the membership wishes to follow, after thorough publicity and unemotional discussion of pro and con aspects so an informed decision can be made for your board to follow!

this commentary can begin with the contributors from this forum starting a viable publicity campaign to get the attention of the membership to voice their wishes to mgmt. something i wish could be facilitated locally.

btw, thanks for the open discussion it has been quite fascinating and enlightening...

ipse

Your posting is spot on Solus.

I wish it were that easy to change the direction of VCDL. We must remember that VCDL is not a grass roots organization. VCDL members do not get to vote for the organizations directors. VCDL is run by the politburo method of management. By this I mean that those on the board choose who can be on the board. Mere members who are frustrated with the boards direction either quit the organization or put up with it.

The origin of VCDL and its politburo method of management help explain the proclivity of VCDL to fawn over P4P. VCDL was originally the Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League and they were formed to bring about shall issue in Virginia. Back in the day under may issue, Northern Virginia CHPs were as rare as hens teeth. The organization claims gun rights, but its board is still fighting most aggressively for P4P.

The VCDL "politburo" is rabid about P4P, and their progeny, VCDL PAC, are just as rabid about Republican endorsements. These issues are the wedges that tend to drive a wedge into the cohesiveness of Virginia gun activists. Until VCDL reforms, the wedge will not go away.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

 

[marshaul]

The VCDL "politburo" is rabid about P4P, and their progeny, VCDL PAC, are just as rabid about Republican endorsements. These issues are the wedges that tend to drive a wedge into the cohesiveness of Virginia gun activists. Until VCDL reforms, the wedge will not go away.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[grylnsmn]

The VCDL side of this discussion is fraudulent, to be frank. Permits are not an intermediate step; as far as the VCDL is concerned they are "a fact of life". And why shouldn't they be, with so many profiteering on the abrogation of right?

Right now, permits are a "fact of life". There is no realistic way that we are going to get a repeal of 18.2-308 passed with the current makeup of the Virginia Senate, let alone the current resident of the Governor's Mansion. Anyone who says otherwise needs a very real reality check.

My grandfather always used to say that you have to start with the world the way it is. Well, permits are a fact of life today in Virginia, and we don't have any viable options to change that in the foreseeable future. We would need 2/3 majorities in both the House and the Senate after the 2015 elections, or simple majorities and a favorable Governor after the 2017 elections to have any hope of getting constitutional carry in Virginia. Until then, the best we can hope for is to get incremental changes.

If you disagree with that assessment, then please tell me what a realistic path to constitutional carry in Virginia is. I would love to find one, but I simply don't see it as things stand right now.

 

[peter nap]

Right now, permits are a "fact of life". There is no realistic way that we are going to get a repeal of 18.2-308 passed with the current makeup of the Virginia Senate, let alone the current resident of the Governor's Mansion. Anyone who says otherwise needs a very real reality check.

My grandfather always used to say that you have to start with the world the way it is. Well, permits are a fact of life today in Virginia, and we don't have any viable options to change that in the foreseeable future. We would need 2/3 majorities in both the House and the Senate after the 2015 elections, or simple majorities and a favorable Governor after the 2017 elections to have any hope of getting constitutional carry in Virginia. Until then, the best we can hope for is to get incremental changes.

If you disagree with that assessment, then please tell me what a realistic path to constitutional carry in Virginia is. I would love to find one, but I simply don't see it as things stand right now.

I have to disagree with that.

A fact of life means to me that it is something you have to have to function. I function quite well without one without a permit and I carry!

Taking it further, it isn't even a fact of life if one wants to conceal. That can be and is done daily without permits. Discussing that would be a violation of board rules so we won't ....but that is a very real fact.

Rather than a fact of life...permits are more an alternate lifestyle for people who feel the need for permission.

 

[BillB]

But all is not lost. I saw in the Alerts that VCDL is neutral on Sunday Hunting. That's a good thing but damned if I don't need new glasses because try as I did, couldn't find any mention of it on the legislative agenda.

Why is the fact that a gun rights outfit is neutral on allowing Sunday hunting a good thing? Any gun rights origination should be a strong supporter of Sunday hunting because it increases gun use opportunities for gun owners. Why is VCDL only neutral?

 

[Thundar]

Right now, permits are a "fact of life". There is no realistic way that we are going to get a repeal of 18.2-308 passed with the current makeup of the Virginia Senate, let alone the current resident of the Governor's Mansion. Anyone who says otherwise needs a very real reality check.

My grandfather always used to say that you have to start with the world the way it is. Well, permits are a fact of life today in Virginia, and we don't have any viable options to change that in the foreseeable future. We would need 2/3 majorities in both the House and the Senate after the 2015 elections, or simple majorities and a favorable Governor after the 2017 elections to have any hope of getting constitutional carry in Virginia. Until then, the best we can hope for is to get incremental changes.

If you disagree with that assessment, then please tell me what a realistic path to constitutional carry in Virginia is. I would love to find one, but I simply don't see it as things stand right now.

*******
We must not limit our quest for more freedom on a false D vs. R counting exercise. For if we do limit ourselves, then we have lost before the first shot is fired.
*******


1. The first step to Constitutional Carry is the mindset change in gun activists. The mindset needs to change to gun rights activists.

The needed mindset: Understand that this is a protracted war, not a single skirmish. Set our sights on the final outcomes. For me the final outcome would be something like this:

A) Firearms rights unencumbered by any Commonwealth law (Constitutional Carry plus repeal of almost all state firearms laws)

B) No support by agents of the Commonwealth for infringing federal law (Like the bill now in the House of Delegates)

C) Intra-state commerce in firearms, outside of the realm of the federal government to regulate or legislate (A firearms Freedom Act, except with a stated purpose of strengthening the Commonwealth Militia)


2. Gun rights advocates need to advocate for the elimination of Jim Crow civil rights suppression laws such as concealed handgun permits.

3. Gun rights advocates need to label those that oppose constitutional carry for what they really are: civil rights supressionists.

Is this radical? In the current political climate, yes it is. But if we are to create real change we must normalize these thoughts. After all the call for more (gun) freedom is a worthy message, and we cannot accomplish it, or much else if we are self limiting.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

 

[grylnsmn]

I have to disagree with that.

A fact of life means to me that it is something you have to have to function. I function quite well without one without a permit and I carry!

Taking it further, it isn't even a fact of life if one wants to conceal. That can be and is done daily without permits. Discussing that would be a violation of board rules so we won't ....but that is a very real fact.

Rather than a fact of life...permits are more an alternate lifestyle for people who feel the need for permission.

Would you prefer that I say "the existence of permits is a fact of life"? My meaning would be the same.

The simple fact is that Virginia has a permitting scheme right now, and that isn't going to change. If a normal* person wishes to carry a concealed handgun in public legally (since we don't advocate for illegal carry here), then a CHP is the only significant viable option.

And I don't see anyone who is complaining about VCDL's approach suggesting another viable way to move things forward from where things are today. As long as Bloomberg's lackey is in office, we need a supermajority in the GA to pass anything on the scale of constitutional carry, and we won't even have a chance of getting that until the 2015 elections. As Woollard vs. Sheridan/Gallagher showed, the 4th Circuit or the Supreme Court isn't going to help us much.

Especially over the next 4 years, I'd much rather we see some small progress towards greater normalization of carry in all its forms, rather than no progress. Occasionally that will mean P4P, because we don't have the support to get more than that, but that is only a waypoint on the path to the final goal. I don't have a problem with a long gun bill that's P4P this year, if that's all that we can get, as long as we keep pushing to remove the P4P portion next year. (I do have a problem with only aiming for the P4P option and then not pushing forward beyond that.)

Our opponents routinely use the camel's nose method to try and get what they want. It has also worked in our favor over the years, in those places where it's been used (such as how Arizona got constitutional carry). It may not be as quick as any of us would like, but as long as it keeps things moving in the right direction it's one more tool in our toolbox.

* i.e. not a cop, CA, harbormaster, etc

 

[solus]

Your posting is spot on Solus.

I wish it were that easy to change the direction of VCDL. We must remember that VCDL is not a grass roots organization. VCDL members do not get to vote for the organizations directors. VCDL is run by the politburo method of management. By this I mean that those on the board choose who can be on the board. Mere members who are frustrated with the boards direction either quit the organization or put up with it.

The origin of VCDL and its politburo method of management help explain the proclivity of VCDL to fawn over P4P. VCDL was originally the Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League and they were formed to bring about shall issue in Virginia. Back in the day under may issue, Northern Virginia CHPs were as rare as hens teeth. The organization claims gun rights, but its board is still fighting most aggressively for P4P.

The VCDL "politburo" is rabid about P4P, and their progeny, VCDL PAC, are just as rabid about Republican endorsements. These issues are the wedges that tend to drive a wedge into the cohesiveness of Virginia gun activists. Until VCDL reforms, the wedge will not go away.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

strange thundar, sounds exactly like our local grass roots organizational structure whose membership pay 30$ and have no say in the organization's goals or direction.

to be honest tho i have no earthly idea how to change the politburo mentality of these organizations so they are viable entities...

i do believe membership education is a beginning but how to get the board to acquiesce to allow differing factions to promote open unemotional discussion for the board to follow befuddles me.

ipse

 

[peter nap]

Why is the fact that a gun rights outfit is neutral on allowing Sunday hunting a good thing? Any gun rights origination should be a strong supporter of Sunday hunting because it increases gun use opportunities for gun owners. Why is VCDL only neutral?

It's a good thing is smart ass language for "About time".

Don't ask me why, ask Philip. Target ranges seem to be recognized as people with guns but hunters aren't even though they want hunters to join in. Part of the problem is VaHDA who seems to have a counting problem when figuring how many members they have (Keep adding zeros).

Since we broke their back the other day....Kirby isn't purty anymore, so maybe VCDL will stop taking advice from them/

 

[BillB]

Don't ask me why, ask Philip.

I get better and much more direct answers from you.

 

[peter nap]

Would you prefer that I say "the existence of permits is a fact of life"? My meaning would be the same.

The simple fact is that Virginia has a permitting scheme right now, and that isn't going to change. If a normal* person wishes to carry a concealed handgun in public legally (since we don't advocate for illegal carry here), then a CHP is the only significant viable option.

And I don't see anyone who is complaining about VCDL's approach suggesting another viable way to move things forward from where things are today. As long as Bloomberg's lackey is in office, we need a supermajority in the GA to pass anything on the scale of constitutional carry, and we won't even have a chance of getting that until the 2015 elections. As Woollard vs. Sheridan/Gallagher showed, the 4th Circuit or the Supreme Court isn't going to help us much.

Especially over the next 4 years, I'd much rather we see some small progress towards greater normalization of carry in all its forms, rather than no progress. Occasionally that will mean P4P, because we don't have the support to get more than that, but that is only a waypoint on the path to the final goal. I don't have a problem with a long gun bill that's P4P this year, if that's all that we can get, as long as we keep pushing to remove the P4P portion next year. (I do have a problem with only aiming for the P4P option and then not pushing forward beyond that.)

Our opponents routinely use the camel's nose method to try and get what they want. It has also worked in our favor over the years, in those places where it's been used (such as how Arizona got constitutional carry). It may not be as quick as any of us would like, but as long as it keeps things moving in the right direction it's one more tool in our toolbox.

* i.e. not a cop, CA, harbormaster, etc

Actually I think we're on the same wavelength. I don't care if permits exist and I don't care if they are easier and cheaper to get..P4P is giving permit holders any privileges that non permit holders have aside from concealing the gun.
When those bills are introduced...we'll all be fighting each other.

 

[Tess]

Your posting is spot on Solus.

I wish it were that easy to change the direction of VCDL. We must remember that VCDL is not a grass roots organization. VCDL members do not get to vote for the organizations directors. VCDL is run by the politburo method of management. By this I mean that those on the board choose who can be on the board. Mere members who are frustrated with the boards direction either quit the organization or put up with it.

The origin of VCDL and its politburo method of management help explain the proclivity of VCDL to fawn over P4P. VCDL was originally the Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League and they were formed to bring about shall issue in Virginia. Back in the day under may issue, Northern Virginia CHPs were as rare as hens teeth. The organization claims gun rights, but its board is still fighting most aggressively for P4P.

The VCDL "politburo" is rabid about P4P, and their progeny, VCDL PAC, are just as rabid about Republican endorsements. These issues are the wedges that tend to drive a wedge into the cohesiveness of Virginia gun activists. Until VCDL reforms, the wedge will not go away.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

VCDL Board of Directors members are elected by the Executive Members (I am one) at an annual meeting, usually in July. Propose members to EMs (I've longed for a list of all EMs to be published, but some of them don't want their names public in that role. I will offer to submit a bylaw proposal this year that publication of these names be performed at least annually.) I would identify other members of this board who are EMs, but given I've already been chastised once in the past year for doing so, will call upon them to identify themselves.

EMs do not have a say in the legislative agenda, except through their votes for Board members. We discuss it, with varying degrees of success, on a private message board, but the BOD has the final say. I will state categorically that I will not advocate here, on the private board, or in person, on behalf of an individual who is not a member of VCDL. If you don't belong, you don't get to say how it's run.

BTW, the Board members' names and their e-mail addresses are published (here, we differ from GRNC).

 

[tomrkba]

The goal is constitutional carry. Just because VCDL is supporting P4P bills doesn't mean they're not supporting constitutional carry. If P4P can convert concealed carry to constitutional carry in all but name, then why not do it?