See this.

There may still be some need for serious activism this year, and for the next legislative session it is, I think, a certainty. Please sign up, and encourage your friends to.

Thanks,
jr

You might want to make this a sticky. It's pretty important.

Thanks Joel.

Good idea; done.You're welcome.

On board.... and will pass the word !

I'm in.

I finally remembered to sign up.

Well - I stretch the truth a tot. Got email from ddb reminding me.

But I'm signed up now.

Apparantly there are more than 124 registered users of this list. Undoubtedly a handful of them have to be anti spies (I'm on several anti mailing lists so turnabout is fair play, I guess), but most of us should be willing to sign up for this mailing list.

I know of at least one lurker who will be signing up, if he hasn't already.

I'm in.

And once again... Thanks Joel!

Just joined the forum and signed up for the email notification!

Thanks,

I've been both pleased and gratified at how many people have already signed up for the activism list.

I'm not particularly pleased -- or gratified -- at one particularly unhappy email I received, from somebody (not speaking for CCRN in any official category, and not a member of the CCRN leadership) suggesting that since CCRN already has an email blast list, there's somehow something wrong with somebody else setting up an announcement list on the subject.

Let's take a quick look at that. The work of CCRN, led by Joe Olson, has been utterly essential to getting the word out in terms of legislation and activism over the past few years. It continues to be a vital center of activism on self-defense/gun-rights issues, and I don't think that should, or will, change.

But, as I said here, back in early June, what has made carry reform work in Minnesota -- and elsewhere -- is "multi-threaded activism, often coordinated at central points, but powered by the activities and convictions of individuals. In the days before the MCPPA was repassed, legislators received quite literally tens of thousands of emails via the CCRN web mailer, many more from folks emailing directly, and so many phone calls from citizen-activists that it became clear that they quite simply would have to address the issue in order to get other work done."

CCRN was, and continues to be, vital to that work. But it isn't the only thread, and in my opinion it shouldn't be. NRA could and should have been involved in the MCPPA repassage, just to pick one example, and there were many people operating outside of the CCRN umbrella who did work that was,in my opinion, essential.

And here, I'm going to express a disagreement with the management of CCRN. That's okay. While the new instructor certification rules may well turn out okay, there were no email blasts from CCRN on the subject; for reasons that I respect, but disagree with, Joe and Tim apparently felt that the rules should be negotiated behind the scenes, with the meetings that took place at the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, and without widespread public discussion and input.

That's not a discreditable position; it's merely one that I disagree with, and I think that the suggested regulations that the MSA committee came out with bear me out on this: they are, at best, not bad, and if nobody had gotten active about them, they'd be set to go into effect less than a month from now, with all the problems that we've discussed, here and at the LiveJournal.

The public commentary -- and the calls to the BCA, Commissioner Campion, Senator Pariseau, and the governor's office, which I hope will result in more reasonable standards -- happened because citizen-activists did the usual: they wrote emails, made phone calls, and shared information.

In order to do that, they needed information.

Hence the activism list. It certainly isn't the only communications venue outside of CCRN for these matters -- there's the CCRN yahoo group (which is an independent mailing list, not run out of the CCRN mailer), the concealedcarry yahoo group, Usenet, and others.

And anybody else is free to put together a venue -- internet-based, like this Forum or the Activism list list; or any other kind -- to share information on these issues.

And just as I haven't heard any criticism, objections, or complaints from CCRN in what I've done -- and don't expect to; if I do, you'll hear about it -- I not only won't criticize others who engage in their own thread of activism.

In fact, I encourage it.

A clarification: in addition to the less-than-friendly email, I got a very friendly one from a long-time activist who I respect, asking who will be able to use the Activism list -- he wanted to know how seriously he should take information and requests for action received on it.

That's simple: me. The Activism list is run off my server, and I'm the only one who can send out an email blast from it. I haven't had any requests to share the keys to it, and I'd be unlikely to say yes. If I did -- as unlikely as that is -- I'd insist that anybody else using it sign their own name and give their own contact information when sending out an email blast.

Short form: whatever credibility -- or lack thereof -- that a message sent by the Activism list has is mine, entirely.

The only place we get current news on what is going on in this state is from this list and Joel. There is nothing current, posted on CCRN (really bad) web site, no CCRN emails on the instructor rules. If fact the last Email I received from the CCRN com-center was 7/19,7/21 for a missing child and on 6/1 for range protection.

As far as I can tell no one from the CCRN board even reads their own Yahoo group’s messages.

Maybe the leadership of CCRN is working hard for carry rights in the state, but I just do not see it. I do not see any information on what the CCRN leadership is doing and I am never asked for my input.

Here at TCC I know what is going on, and can make suggestions.

Thanks Joel!

Organizing for political purposes is essential to accomplish anything in our political system, but inevitably it leaves a dogmatic institution in place that seeks to perpetuate itself and consolidate its power. This is always the case, and will continue to be the case as long as human nature is involved.

In this instance the political need for the institution continues to exist, and will for some time. Thus we need to continue to support CCRN. But Joel is absolutely correct--we succeeded because of a multi-fronted attack on the part of the pro-2A crowd. And we need to continue to work in this manner because CCRN alone cannot accomplish what we all can by pooling our resources.

Unfortunately factions within CCRN already appear to be expending their energy in an attempt to consolidate power and shut out other organs for political expression. We need to put the kybosh on this faction as soon as possible, for the good of the movement and ultimately for the long-term good of CCRN. And we need to do this carefully, to keep from weakening CCRN.

I think that there's been ongoing issues with the top leadership of CCRN having difficulties in sharing/expanding authority -- although I do know that they're trying. I don't see what's been going on as a power grab, but as an attempt to try to keep gun rights advocacy in Minnesota on the same page, and speaking with the same voice, and strong feelings about how some things should be handled -- some of which I agree with, and some of which I disagree with, like both the method and results of the putatively open but in fact quite closely-held closed-door meetings at the MSA on the certification rules.

An organization, I think, should speak with very few voices. That's why there's only three spokesmen for CCRN -- Joe Olson, Tim Grant, and John Caile (David Gross isn't very often a spokesman for CCRN) -- and mostly it's Joe or John.

And that's fine; that's the way CCRN is structured, and given the numbers of folks involved in regular CCRN activity, that's probably necessary. If CCRN became the kind of organization that anybody could join (which it is), and which elected its leadership by a majority vote of the members (which it isn't), it would be pretty easy for one faction or another (or even possible for Rebecca Thoman and her small but decidedly not merry band) to take it over, regardless of the skills and orientation of the folks doing so.

And I think that would be a bad thing.

I'm not trying to reform CCRN -- even if reform is desirable (and, in some cases, I think it is) -- because that's not what I'm interested in doing. What I'm doing, as I've said, is my own thread of the whole multi-threaded activism thing. I think that there need to be more voices on all this than Joe, Tim, and John -- and that's not a criticism of Joe, Tim, or John.

One of those voices is mine; and I'm hoping that others will include most of you.

For some reason, I never read this sign up message. Count me in, I'm signed up now!

My Wife and I went to Ahlman's Shooter's RoundUp last weekend. Alfred F. was manning the CCRN both. My wife being the curious sort asked Alfred what CCRN was doing right now, his responce was I don't know.

Make us really wonder.