Last week, San Francisco Assemblyman Phil Ting called GOC out publicly and claimed we are liars.
Dude. Before making such inflammatory, ugly and false statements, he might want to check his facts. But then again, he is a Leftist and Leftists have a problem with the truth.
In 
Ting blustered however, and said Sam’s remark was “ABSOLUTELY FALSE” and that he has “reached out” to GOC and that it was “news to him” that we’d ever want to have a discussion. Watch it here.
GOC wonders if Ting’s pants could be on fire at the same time his nose grows. To quote GOC’s founder, “Dogs bark, snakes wiggle, jackasses bray, vultures vomit and radical leftists lie. It’s in their nature to do so.” ** Damn straight.
GOC must be very clear: We have never received any sort of communication from either Assemblyman Ting or his staff. Our door has always been open. Our phones are in working order. Folks can find us by Googling “Gun Owners of California.”
In addition, with each bill GOC opposes, we submit an official letter to members of the Senate, Assembly as well as staff through the legislative portal, where we very clearly outline our issues with said legislation. The following have been pulled from actual letters on record:
- “I believe we should get down to the business of reducing crime, rather than penalizing the lawful for the misdeeds of the unlawful – it will never have its anticipated resolution. For those who are interested in stemming the tide of illegal weapons, we share a common desire, and GOC believes we can cooperatively move towards this goal. I would be more than happy to discuss this and other related issues at your convenience.”
- “As is the norm, I like to end my legislative letters with a sincere invitation to discuss the legislation at hand, plus other Second Amendment related issues; unfortunately, it is rarely accepted. I remain hopeful however, that in the aftermath of the Bruen decision by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen – and others in the past months on the concealed carry matter – that we could ultimately have a productive Constitutional dialogue.”
- “This is yet another wrong-headed and futile approach to solving the problem of criminal firearm misuse. The safety of Californians is at the very foundation of GOC’s mission, and it has been our consistent goal to work toward common sense solutions regarding the issue of crime and firearm ownership; this can be done, however, without sacrificing our Constitutional rights and the ability of the law abiding to protect their families. As always, I would be pleased to discuss this with you should you so desire.”
- “It has long been our conviction that penalizing the lawful for the misdeeds of the unlawful will never have it’s intended result. It is both a punitive and ineffective means to an end, and I say enough with the scare tactics – let’s get down to the business of reducing crime. I believe we have a common goal in stemming the tide of illegal weapons and would be more than pleased to discuss how we can cooperatively move towards this goal.”
Does GOC tire of sincerely offering to sit down and discuss possible areas of common ground regarding the Constitution and the Second Amendment with anti-2A legislators? Yes – but we do it anyway. We have been stiff-armed to such a degree that yes, we may not include the offer to have a sincere dialogue in every single letter we’ve written in the past decade, but our desire to communicate with those whom we disagree has been very public and genuine. Heck – getting background materials from member’s offices on authored legislation has become a chore – but because we lobby on behalf of California’s gun owners we are routinely dismissed by childish staff who haven’t the foggiest idea of how to act like professionals. For real, people – this can be done with those of differing perspectives.
We must conclude with at least one caveat: When in office, Senator Joseph Simitian – a Democrat from the Bay area, was not only interested in having multiple conversations with GOC’s Sam Paredes, but he was always thoughtful, considerate and professional. While we may have ultimately disagreed on most matters of policy, the respectful and sincere tenor with which he communicated was then – and is to this day – deeply appreciated.
Many could learn from his wise demeanor.
**Senator H.L. Richardson in Confrontational Politics, Page 91