I had a Denver Spy File on me 10 years ago, largely because we were kicking the Governor (a Republican) so hard.
At the time, we were holding protests (300+ people at a time), and so DPD and other metro PD's started "watching" us (by us, I mean those who led and organized these events, which happened quite frequently).
So, I'd get phonecalls from the DPD "Intel" officers, trying to figure out what was going to happen at any planned protest. Most of the time I said "We'll be peacefully practicing our First Amendment rights, but I can't control who shows up, what they do, etc."
I'm a relatively clean cut family guy, and I have no interest in breaking laws that hurt people. I'll push the envelope pretty hard, but when it comes down to it, if I see there's a distinct possibility of violence at an event we're sponsoring, I'll say something to law enforcement. And I tell police that.
In any event, me even talking to police angered Duncan.
Here's a newsflash: if you're a gun lobbyist, you're going to have to talk to law enforcement on a number of levels, especially candidates for sheriff, and you can't have the "ALL COPS SUCK" attitude. And though I'm the first to say that law enforcement, in a political sense, is RARELY with us on gun issues, I can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Little known Fact: the lobbyist for the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police is also the lobbyist for the only organized official anti-gun group in the state, Colorado Ceasefire Capital Fund.
About me in college: I have done many things I'm not proud of. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of hiding behind a username in a forum, as I do things publicly, and much of my life is up for review (especially when you have a GOP Governor who is pissed at you, and has people digging into your background for dirt). Yes, my college transgression (in 1988) was actually in the Rocky Mountain News (in 2000, I think), so it's not like this is any hot news.
As far as SB07-34, I guess you'll have to disagree on our strategy. Fine, don't be a member.
But here's a question (for those of you who claim we took the wrong position on that bill): tell me who YOU work with in the Capitol? That might tell me more about who you are and what you think.
I'm not going type for the next two weeks on this issue in an attempt to rehash everything, but there are a LOT of angles to all of this, and once in a while, we get one wrong. I honestly don't remember every nuance of that fight -- I've been a gun lobbyist for 17 years -- starting my 18th now -- and I've seen more than a couple of legislative fights.
Go ahead and give Sens. Ted Harvey, Scott Renfroe, Dave Schultheis, Greg Brophy, etc, etc, etc. and ask them about what RMGO does.
They are BY FAR the most active, pro-gun members of the legislature.
As for NAGR (Luke O'Dell is our operations director, which you can read about on
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/about-us-2/ ), YES, we helped form Iowa Gun Owners (look them up), and emphatically endorse what they do.
They're a sharp stick in the eye of the Establishment in Iowa.
My impression of OC people was that they weren't compromising NRA stooges, but apparently with some, I guess I'm wrong.
And yes, if you think running Vermont laws, and pushing for real freedom, and suing sheriffs who won't issue permits (because of the applicant's political activities), then you REALLY don't want to be a member of RMGO or NAGR.
RMGO does NOT do everything perfectly. We have bad days, we get faulty information, we fail to raise the funds to do all of the things we think are important, and we (NAGR and RMGO staff) always have too many things we want to do (and, like triage, we have to make on-the-fly judgments).