Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 6/3/2008 6:56:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/3/2008 6:57:13 AM EST by Cavalry99]
This is how it's done folks. End of discussion. CMMG doled out the money, time, and effort and made it happen. Can anyone else say they actually hired a lobbyist? Straight from the Missouri Ethics Commission, page 189 of their lobbyist report. Also, the other 2A groups were told to sit down and be quiet and stay out of this.

Whitney O'Daniel
Principals
American Watercraft Association
CMMG, Inc.
National Rifle Association - Institue for Legislative Action
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 9:32:46 AM EST

American Watercraft Association




Supressed jetski's? What was their interest/motivation in this bill?
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 9:43:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By ARinKCMO:

American Watercraft Association




Supressed jetski's? What was their interest/motivation in this bill?


A principal is a client. This lobbyist was registered as having three clients. Watercraft Association, the NRA, and CMMG. The clients interests have nothing to do with each other. Some lobbyists have 2 or 3 clients, some have as many as 15. Just depends on the lobbyist and the depth of the issues.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 11:41:49 AM EST
I have said it before and I will say it again,
Thank you to all of you at CMMG for this wonderful thing you have done.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 12:16:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By ARinKCMO:

American Watercraft Association




Supressed jetski's? What was their interest/motivation in this bill?



This sounds like a kickass idea
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 12:27:20 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By GaryM:
I have said it before and I will say it again,
Thank you to all of you at CMMG for this wonderful thing you have done.


And I will say again that the support should go to the one (CMMG) that was the principal supporter and pusher for this bill instead of some Johnny come lately making a donation for a picnic trying to cash in on others hard work.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 12:30:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By 9026543:

Originally Posted By GaryM:
I have said it before and I will say it again,
Thank you to all of you at CMMG for this wonderful thing you have done.


And I will say again that the support should go to the one (CMMG) that was the principal supporter and pusher for this bill instead of some Johnny come lately making a donation for a picnic trying to cash in on others hard work.


Or some other unnamed group that considers themselves to be the self appointed, all knowing, legislative expert, gatekeeper of Missouri gun policy.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 1:58:52 PM EST
Thanks CMMG. I have two manufacturers of AR goodies I will buy from. You are one of them.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 2:49:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/3/2008 3:18:43 PM EST by v188]

Originally Posted By Cavalry99:

Originally Posted By 9026543:

Originally Posted By GaryM:
I have said it before and I will say it again,
Thank you to all of you at CMMG for this wonderful thing you have done.


And I will say again that the support should go to the one (CMMG) that was the principal supporter and pusher for this bill instead of some Johnny come lately making a donation for a picnic trying to cash in on others hard work.


Or some other unnamed group that considers themselves to be the self appointed, all knowing, legislative expert, gatekeeper of Missouri gun policy.


I'll go even farther. I'm pretty sure that MO Carry is the all knowing experts on MO gun policy. (Sarcasm dripping). Let's explore this:

On a separate thread, they are pimping a business that gave them $500.00. This wasn't disclosed up front. The thread also negated CMMG's massive efforts to get the suppressor law changed for the betterment of ALL Missouri gun owners.

MO Carry then negated CMMG's ability to sell suppressors. Yet, it's obvious that they have sales in hand, at this moment.

Think back to last year, MOCarry was leading the fight to NOT give us concealed carry and Castle Doctrine, because they didn't get everything they wanted in one stroke. Remember the threads on this last year? If these guys had their way, we wouldn't have the Castle legislation. (All knowing MO gun experts? You decide)

Then they wanted to go after Sen Goodman on the Castle bill. Guess who hauled the water getting our suppressors approved? Yep, you guessed it Sen Goodman. Good thing that we didn't listen to our self professed gun experts, huh?

I understand that the NRA is even at odds with them, because every time a good piece of gun legislation comes up, you can be assured our esteemed experts are there screwing it up.

I know FOR A FACT, that MO Carry played no measureable role in getting the suppressor law passed. In fact things had to be done to work around them.

This is what I know. Jeff and Jon worked long and hard, spent their valuable time and money getting us ALL a right back from the govt. I know that I'll be supporting them. As far as the Damage guy, I don't know anything about him, and I won't fault him as a business man trying to get some sales.

BUT........ when an unsavory group wants to pimp some business without disclosing the $500 they received from the vendor, AND negate all the hard work that CMMG did, well, I won't sit back quietly. I support my friends and good businesses. CMMG are both.

As far as our "experts in MO gun policies" well .......... you can jolly well bugger off.



Edited for spelling correction



Link Posted: 6/3/2008 3:40:31 PM EST
Thank you CMMG, it sounds like you guys went above and beyond on this.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 3:45:31 PM EST
Thanks for clarifying. I was a little confused by the exchange in the other active thread. I don't know if I will get a suppressor from CMMG (they may not stock what I want to buy), but they will get my SBR business.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 3:48:01 PM EST
Sounds like Mo Carry may have taken a page from the playbook of the old Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri and is claiming the whole responsibility for something they had very little to do with.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 3:50:50 PM EST
Just to add some more. Senator Goodman is a great senator possibly the next floor leader. He brought us Castle Doctrine despite the attempts of some people who refused to compromise to get exactly what they wanted. We should all be supporting him.

It was CMMG who went to see Goodman about adding suppressors to his 1172 bill in committee as a committee substitue. Even Senator Justus was ok with it too. As she did not filibuster it when 1172 passed by itself from the Senate. 1172 passed the senate as a stand alone bill. Yes, it was not the final bill that passed, but at that point it was clear the House version was going to pass.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 4:01:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By 9026543:
Sounds like Mo Carry may have taken a page from the playbook of the old Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri and is claiming the whole responsibility for something they had very little to do with.


Missouricarry has not claimed responsibility or credit for this once.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 4:16:46 PM EST
Thanks CMMG, job well done.
I have enjoyed your AR15's and look forward to buying some of your new products after Aug 28.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 5:12:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cavalry99:
Even Senator Justus was ok with it too. As she did not filibuster it when 1172 passed by itself from the Senate. 1172 passed the senate as a stand alone bill. Yes, it was not the final bill that passed, but at that point it was clear the House version was going to pass.


Damn, I guess I have to cut Jolie a little bit of slack on this one then. Oh well, I don't mind.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 5:21:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/3/2008 5:26:48 PM EST by Cavalry99]

Originally Posted By WildWilli:
Jeff and Jon did their share. If you think they were the only ones and if you think for a minute they are solely responsible, well then you are sadly mistaken.


Then educate us who else did Willi since you seem to be so much in the know on this? If not MissouriCarry.com, then what group should we be thanking or supporting? You claim that MissouriCarry is not claiming credit, yet CMMG is not solely responsible. So tell us who the others are.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 5:21:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By wheelchairman:

Originally Posted By ARinKCMO:

American Watercraft Association




Supressed jetski's? What was their interest/motivation in this bill?



This sounds like a kickass idea


+1
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 5:45:10 PM EST
Edited for "fact" correction.

Your statements is red. My clarifications in green.


Originally Posted By v188:

I'll go even farther. I'm pretty sure that MO Carry is the all knowing experts on MO gun policy. (Sarcasm dripping). Let's explore this:

On a separate thread, they are pimping a business that gave them $500.00. This wasn't disclosed up front. The thread also negated CMMG's massive efforts to get the suppressor law changed for the betterment of ALL Missouri gun owners.


Any "pimping" I did about Major Malfunction was done sincerely due to his friendly and knowledgable attitude and low prices. He decided to become a sponsor at missouricarry on his own and contacted us yesterday. I found out about it yesterday after it was already a done deal. Not quite sure how we "negated" any effots by CMMG at all. We applauded CMMG for their efforts.

MO Carry then negated CMMG's ability to sell suppressors. Yet, it's obvious that they have sales in hand, at this moment.

Again, we didn't "negate" their "ability" to do anything. Not quite sure how obvious their sales are but there are no suppressors for sale on their webpage at this time and to date I have not seen a suppressor engraved "CMMG".

Think back to last year, MOCarry was leading the fight to NOT give us concealed carry and Castle Doctrine, because they didn't get everything they wanted in one stroke. Remember the threads on this last year? If these guys had their way, we wouldn't have the Castle legislation. (All knowing MO gun experts? You decide)

No matter how many times you say it, it is still not true. We certainly did not fight against concealed carry EVER! That is why we were founded and we (Missourians) got concealed carry in 2004. The Castle Doctrine and elimination of the PTA bill I believe you are talking about and the all or nothing stance at one point during the legislation was handed down from the NRA and NRA lobbyist Whitney O'Daniel. Remember Whitney? We took his advice. It was a strategy in the legislative chess game. It worked well in retrospect but was very much mis-understood.

Then they wanted to go after Sen Goodman on the Castle bill. Guess who hauled the water getting our suppressors approved? Yep, you guessed it Sen Goodman. Good thing that we didn't listen to our self professed gun experts, huh?

Not exactlly. Actually Rep. Brian Munzlinger carried HB2034, the bill that passed. Sen. Goodman sponsored SB1172.

I understand that the NRA is even at odds with them, because every time a good piece of gun legislation comes up, you can be assured our esteemed experts are there screwing it up.

Unsubstantiated. Which credible source do you "understand" this from?

I know FOR A FACT, that MO Carry played no measureable role in getting the suppressor law passed. In fact things had to be done to work around them.

Ask Rep. Brian Munzlinger and get back to me on that one. And name ONE thing done to "work around" us.

This is what I know. Jeff and Jon worked long and hard, spent their valuable time and money getting us ALL a right back from the govt. I know that I'll be supporting them. As far as the Damage guy, I don't know anything about him, and I won't fault him as a business man trying to get some sales.

This statment, I wholeheartedly agree. I personally and a lot of missouricarry members purchase CMMG equipment and I will continue to support them.

BUT........ when an unsavory group wants to pimp some business without disclosing the $500 they received from the vendor, AND negate all the hard work that CMMG did, well, I won't sit back quietly. I support my friends and good businesses. CMMG are both.

Unsavory?...please.

As far as our "experts in MO gun policies" well .......... you can jolly well bugger off.



Edited for spelling correction





What is with all this ill will? Why is it Arfcom vs. MOCarry? MissouriCarry is not out to take away any credit due to CMMG or anybody else that worked on this legislation. We are ecstatic it passed and kudos to CMMG for "carrying the water" on this but even they would tell you they did not do it alone. We (missouricarry.com) have extended an offer to CMMG to discuss the possibility of a fundraiser or an outright donation to help offset their costs. As soon as I have some information, I can take it to the board of directors. I have not yet heard back from Jeff. We are not seeking credit nor are we taking responsibility for it's passage. All of this was again blown out of proportion for whatever reason by the "King of Arfcom99" who happens to be a contributing member of missouricarry.com. He's just stiring the pudding.

If I have mislead anyone into thinking that somehow MissouriCarry was the reason it passed, I apologize and for the record, once again, MissouriCarry would like to thank EVERYONE involved in the passage of the HB2034, especially CMMG!

Link Posted: 6/3/2008 10:20:42 PM EST
Well, regardless of where you fall on this, it's clear we need to all be standing together come this fall and the elections.

We must unify to face the coming ban attempts, etc from Pres. Obama and company...
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 2:24:00 AM EST
Ok, this is becoming like the fight for the democratic nomination, very very tiresome. Can we all just stop bickering like school children and drop it. We all know who was largely responsible and when we are able, I'm sure sales will reward the responsible parties for their work. So, can we all please just get along and stop acting like this is GD.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 5:11:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By mustangracer:
Ok, this is becoming like the fight for the democratic nomination, very very tiresome. Can we all just stop bickering like school children and drop it. We all know who was largely responsible and when we are able, I'm sure sales will reward the responsible parties for their work. So, can we all please just get along and stop acting like this is GD.


very well said!
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 5:11:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By mustangracer:
Ok, this is becoming like the fight for the democratic nomination, very very tiresome. Can we all just stop bickering like school children and drop it. We all know who was largely responsible and when we are able, I'm sure sales will reward the responsible parties for their work. So, can we all please just get along and stop acting like this is GD.


Couldn't of said it any better.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 8:35:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 6:18:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By kel:
Gemtech would like to recognize and thank CMMG for their hard work and considerable financial outlay in helping to get your state freed up from past poor legislation.

We've been in contact with Jeff and company there on this issue for quite some time, and now that we can openly talk about it, I applaud their efforts and any similar efforts of anyone trying to make this world a better place for firearm suppressor ownership.

If it's not too early to count the chickens before they've hatched / bill is signed: Congrats Missouri on becoming another free state!


Kel


ARFCOM INDUSTRY DISCLOSURE: We hope you'll buy Gemtech suppressors, but for right now, I'm just happy to join you guys in celebrating your new freedom to make whatever can choice you like a reality.



I know the bill was passed .. but I am unaware that our governor actually SIGNED the bill .. when did this happen? Not that I am worried about it.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 7:12:04 PM EST
If it's not too early to count the chickens before they've hatched / bill is signed:

I don't think they were stating it's been signed. I agree that their post seemed to say that but re-read it.

PursuitSS
Top Top