Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Chasbo00 wrote: VCDL should clear this up with plain talk and do so publicly.

I have written the VCDL president asking for such. I suggest other VCDL members do so as well.

Why should the VCDL offer a candidate a "second chance survey"? Why should they offer only one candidate this?

Get real, guys.......... There are facts of life in politics, too.

People in the lobbying business have to, above all, keep the door open if they can. You have ZERO chance of influencing the outcome if they won't talk to you. SO, if you're VCDL and you're jockeying to be in a position to have as much influence over relevant events as possible, you are faced with the following hard, cold facts concerning who to endorse for Governor of Virginia:

- McAuliffe, if he's elected, won't give VCDL the time of day no matter what they do/say.

- Sarvis has NO chance of being elected, so it matters little if he nurses a grudge.

- Cuccinelli, on the other hand, might get elected. And there's a chance he might even listen to VCDL on occasion; and it might help if VCDL had endorsed him in this very close election. So WHY IN HELL would they alienate Cuccinelli or his staff by endorsing Sarvis in a close election? And why do you want them to come out and say what I just did; thereby probably alienating Cooch's staff ANYWAY?? For my part, I don't intend to demand that the guys at VCDL shoot themselves in the foot.

Keep in mind what the "issue" is that VCDL rated Ken "So-So" on. It pertained specifically to the "Constitutional Carry" question.

There's a good chance that Constitutional Carry would be at best a mixed bag for VA gun owners. If VA did straight Constitutional Carry, there's a good chance VA would lose all the reciprocity agreements in place with all other states. So, yes it would be great that we could all carry concealed in VA without a permit, but if we lose the reciprocity agreements then we wouldn't be able to carry in ANY other state. That's a high price for people who travel out of state alot.

I haven't seen an actual "Constitutional Carry" bill, but I think one could be a gun owner and 2nd Amendment supporter, AND have actual reasonable concerns about such a bill, and Constitutional Amendment, being enacted in VA.

Perhaps a question to ask is, why does VCDL state you are "Anti-2nd Amendment" if you don't automatically support Constitutional Carry?

VCDL should disavow that any special deals or backroom deals were made regarding their endorsement of Cuccinelli, else they lose credibility as a fair and unbiased gun rights organization.

Chasbo00 wrote:VCDL should disavow that any special deals or backroom deals were made regarding their endorsement of Cuccinelli, else they lose credibility as a fair and unbiased gun rights organization.

If they did indeed give AG a do-over chance on the survey as reported in the OP and also reported by the TLP, I don't think they can disavow a special deal.

Chasbo00 wrote:VCDL should disavow that any special deals or backroom deals were made regarding their endorsement of Cuccinelli, else they lose credibility as a fair and unbiased gun rights organization.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As Tricky Dick Nixon would probably tell you if he was still among us, there is definitely a PR downside to telling the world "I am not a crook". There is a tendency for people to wonder why it is necessary to say that.

I looked back over the posts here, and I saw no articulated basis for a conclusion that there was a "backroom deal". So I am left with the conclusion that the Sarvis camp took the position that since VCDL's decision didn't go their way, it must have been a crooked deal. That's not the kind of reaction that inspires any confidence on my part on the Sarvis organization's capacity to make sound decisions in a political environment that necessarily requires that NOTHING goes 100% the way you want it and EVERYTHING involves compromise.

Sad truth is that people who do lobbying frequently are obliged to grit their teeth and shake hands with folks even when they feel the need to go straight to a sink and wash them. (I'm not suggesting that either Cuccinelli or Sarvis are such people) As I pointed out above, I think it couldn't be more clear that this was a pragmatic well-considered political decision aimed at maximizing VCDL's chances of being an effective advocate for its members in the future. Life's not fair, there ain't no Santy-Clause, and sometimes you have to go along to get along. And like it or not, in the halls of government (yes, even in our fair Commonwealth) people who take extreme ideological positions and refuse to moderate them just are not taken seriously by enough people to have ANY influence on outcomes. You have to maintain access, and you have to be credible or you are wasting EVERYBODY'S time and your member's money. The guys at VCDL know that. All of us SHOULD know that, too.

VCDL is in good company with the endorsement. Both the NRA and GOA endorsed Cuccinelli, and I don't think there is any skulduggery on VCDL's part in doing the same. However, VCDL is not a very open organization and I think they should clear the air on this allegation.

By the way, I should state that:

(1) I do not speak for VCDL and,

(2) Although I am a member, I am not an officer or agent of the organization, am in no way in "insider", and have not discussed this with anyone who is.

(3) The opinions expressed here concerning VCDL's endorsement decisions are entirely my own; although they are based upon my own experiences gleaned from some years of "government relations" activity on behalf of the industry I spent my life in. Just a little horse sense from an old horse who's hauled many a load.

dorminWS wrote:I looked back over the posts here, and I saw no articulated basis for a conclusion that there was a "backroom deal". So I am left with the conclusion that the Sarvis camp took the position that since VCDL's decision didn't go their way, it must have been a crooked deal.

Similar interpretation for me.

Expect a statement from VCDL on this later today.

"So I am left with the conclusion that the Sarvis camp took the position that since VCDL's decision didn't go their way, it must have been a crooked deal. "

(shrugs) Sounds about like that...

I just got another quick email from president@vcdl.org stating that there is video of the incident and he will be reviewing that before making a statement.

Haven't seen anything from vcdl yet other than a mini-update with no information on this topic.

Whatever the deal, all our big three (GOA NRA AND VCDL) have come out for Cucc.

I am the first to wish the world would be voting solely in backlash to the attacks on 2A recently, but from my experience, the vast majority of the population believes they can only vote D or R if they want it to count. So, voting L does seem only to only have power in those who wish to make a stand.

Next, I'd point out that the governor only has power to veto. Constitutional carry could get past him without his consent.

Third, other than constitutional carry, it seems Cucc is fine.

Given this, it might be a better decision to join GOA na d NRA and support Cucc. Why dilute our own voting base under the aforementioned conditions?

With regard to evidence of backroom deals, i think there is enough: the decision to call and coach him was evidence enogh. Did they do the same for Mcawful and Sarvis? Simply put though, the decision for endorcement conflicts with the data obtained from the questionairre. At that point, I am sorry to say because I love VCDL, you need to come out and explain to your base the discrepancy. Most people understand reason, and i doubt many of us would go againt your endorsement choice if it were explained.

I am pretty sure we all understand why, but youve got to confirm it to show that you are working to help. Otherwise you become like the ohbummer administration.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Anyone think this will surface at the monthly VCDL meeting in Annandale tonight?

I got the chance to speak to Ken one-on-one few a few minutes after an event in NOVA a couple of days ago and I asked him about the VCDL "So-So" endorsement since it has been a topic in this thread. He made a few points to me:

1. He's filled out the survey 5 times now, for 5 elections, and has never changed any of his answers on the survey. Consistency is a big deal for him
2. The Senate district he represented was 3 to 1 anti-gun
3. While he was in the State Senate he was consistently rated as a very pro-gun candidate and he not only voted to uphold 2nd A rights, but he CARRIED multiple pro 2nd A bills for VCDL.

The politically expedient time for Ken to squish on gun-rights would have been when he was in the State Senate. He didn't go soft on our gun rights then, and told me directly he hasn't now.

With regard to the Constitutional Carry, he genuinely believes that background checks for Concealed Carry are a good thing, given the current legal structure and nature in VA, and disagrees with VCDL on the issue. He's talked to them about it too (to my knowledge anyways).

I don't know how VCDL voted or came to a conclusion on who to endorse, but they did choose the candidate with the best actual record on gun-rights in the race and I think it was the right choice. If I was a VCDL member and attended the upcoming meeting I would ask them if Ken ever changed any of his answers on the survey since his time in the Senate, and if their answer is "no" then why was Ken rated as "So-So" in ONLY the latest survey?

KC may have never changed on the surveys, however a panel of reviewers might change over time. That could cause a difference in ratings. Just a thought. I have no actual knowledge on how they work things.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

...and VCDL has still not responded after the "review the video" email.

NovaHunter wrote:1. He's filled out the survey 5 times now, for 5 elections, and has never changed any of his answers on the survey. Consistency is a big deal for him

If he hasn't changed his survey responses where do these allegations of him being "coached" come from? It'd be unnecessary.

Kreutz wrote:

NovaHunter wrote:1. He's filled out the survey 5 times now, for 5 elections, and has never changed any of his answers on the survey. Consistency is a big deal for him

If he hasn't changed his survey responses where do these allegations of him being "coached" come from? It'd be unnecessary.

My speculation, he disagreed with VCDL on the Constitutional Carry question and they wanted a different answer from him on it.