Lobbying at the CA Capitol: Whack-A-Mole on Steroids

Lobbying at the State Capitol is kind of like one big game of Whack-a-Mole.  No matter how many times we whack a stupid idea, it doesn’t take long for it to pop up again.  No matter how dumb it is.

Some might consider walking the legislative halls and testifying in committee nothing more than an exercise in futility here in the Golden State, but we don’t.  Not only do we have to be there, we want to be there.  It might be painful, but it’s important that we listen, even if it’s the same old garbage – the same old inaccuracies, the same old posturing, the same old everything.  Why?  Because we have to be ready to respond to the hypocrisy, the propaganda, the lies.  We have to be ready to whack whatever comes up.

Just last week, Senator Anthony Portantino was doing a pretty good job at Legislative Whack-a-Mole. Having authored three of GOC’s top priority bills to oppose, he clearly has more than a few axes to grind with the 2^nd Amendment.  He stripped the contents of a bill about classified employees (SB 1177) and replaced it with language that expands the “one-gun-a-month” law to all firearms – not just handguns.  This is a great example of how things surface, because this ban-on-buying-baloney was originally part of SB 1100 along with the prohibition to sell or transfer of a firearm to anyone under 21.  He basically took one of his three bad bills, split it to make another, and now we have four to fight.  What a guy!

In the past week, both age restriction bills (AB 3/Bonta-D and the aforementioned SB 1100/Portantino-D) passed out of Assembly Public Safety, as did the bill banning gun shows at the Cow Palace (SB 221/Wiener-D). It didn’t help that the Brady Campaign was there to testify in support of each one, while making a big deal about the American Medical Association’s  recent approval of their “common-sense” demands for new gun control measures, including proposals to ban the sale and possession of “all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines,
and armor piercing bullets.”

It’s tough listening to such verbal excrement in committee, but we are determined to stick it out and fight for the people who are the backbone of our state.  What’s become a relatively new challenge, however, is that we have to watch our friends much more closely than before.  Last year we heard that climate change needed to be the priority over the 2^nd Amendment (wait, WHAT?).  This year we face law enforcement’s support of mandating expanded CCW training standards; this unfortunately created an opportunity for some of our good guys to support the bill and shift a bit from their pro-gun roots.  Are they trying to appease a law enforcement hierarchy?  Mad misinformed moms? Fake news afficionados? Whatever the excuse, we don’t like it and will continue to send firm reminders about their gun-voting base.

It might come as a surprise that many, many (especially here in California) elected officials are about as sharp as a marble, and thus employ a strict “don’t confuse me with the truth” policy.  But as it is with most liberals, for all their progressive maneuvers, they are shockingly narrow when it comes to cold, hard facts.  They cover their ears and squint their eyes, keeping anything out that might actually change their minds.  Acknowledging there are good guys (law-abiding pro-2^nd Amendment folks) and bad guys (law-breakers) just doesn’t fit their narrative.

We would much rather watch how sausage is made than any law in California, because at the end of the process, you at least have something pretty tasty.  Not so with legislation – especially when it comes to the issue of guns.   Add some manipulated statistics, a hefty dose of emotion, and unfettered opportunity to make stuff up, and voila:  you’ll get some absurd law that penalizes the lawful for the misdeeds of the unlawful.  And the scourge of criminal gun violence will continue.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke