# More on Grannis... You'll Love this one



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

On March 12, 2007, Mr Alexander "Pete" Grannis made an address to the NYSCC, attempting to assure the ranks of sportsmen that, despite his 32 YEAR resume, that he really isn't like that (what his resume says of him), that he is a friend to us :vom: and, above all else...

"I am not Anti-Gun, I Grew Up With Guns, I Love Guns!"


BULLCRAPPOLA!!!

Hot off the Bat Phone. Apparently this bill was sent to the codes committee on March 20, 2007!!!

http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A06833

More vague language, and I love that "storage" provision. As another asked, does this mean the NYS Police will come knocking on your door to check how you store your firearms? After all, hunters typically own guns, right?

And how exactly would the State Police know who hunts, and where they live???

DECALS DATABASE. Grannis would more than likely release this database for fishing expeditions.

This guy can speak all he wants, but his actions what bely his true ideology and direction. 

NO GRANNIS! NO GRANNIS! NO GRANNIS!


----------



## spoco57 (Aug 31, 2005)

:nixon: Nixon: "I am not a criminal" :lie: 

:nixon: Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman" :lie: 

:nixon: Grannis: " I love guns" :lie:


----------



## floater (Aug 16, 2004)

Kind of sounds like the way John Kerry was presented at our union meetings last time around. He was said to be pro gun also.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

AND WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO SPITZER'S PROMISE

"We will consult with hunting groups before any new gun laws are proposed?" (Stated March 12, 2007)

sheesh.... I don't even think Pelosi could break THAT record!

This is just classic! Hey, NYSSC, and NYB, are you watching this stuff?? I know you are... What the fish? Neutrality? Sounding more like Neutered-ality to me......:embara:


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

Perhaps NYSSC and NYB have decided not to spend their political capital on this particular fight, and that there may be more important issues they will need to deal with in the future.

Time will tell if that decision is a good one or not ......


----------



## Tax Lawyer (Feb 5, 2003)

I don't think it is NYS Police's duty to monitor the quality of manufactured guns.

That is absolutely a federal issue.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Tax Lawyer said:


> I don't think it is NYS Police's duty to monitor the quality of manufactured guns.
> 
> That is absolutely a federal issue.


Yep, and its already taken care of with ISO standards for quality and safety. You cannot market ANY product in the USA without certified safety standards met. :doh:


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

thesource said:


> Perhaps NYSSC and NYB have decided not to spend their political capital on this particular fight, and that there may be more important issues they will need to deal with in the future.
> 
> Time will tell if that decision is a good one or not ......


What could be more important than keeping an absolute ANTI out of the DEC's head position?

Crossbows in archery season?:embara:


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> What could be more important than keeping an absolute ANTI out of the DEC's head position?
> 
> Crossbows in archery season?:embara:


I doubt that he is the best man for the job, but it also is clear that he is not a card carrying anti.

You have done a good job painting him that way, though....nice hatchet job.


If one stops to ponder the possible future issues, it is easy to see that it might be far easier and far more efficient to defeat multiple specific offensive items than to blow it all on a one time shot that may be nothing more than window dressing. If he does get approval - you should be grateful to both orgs that they have retained political capital and have not alienated any of those potential allies they may need later.

Your crossbow slam is noted .... good shot.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

thesource said:


> I doubt that he is the best man for the job, but it also is clear that he is not a card carrying anti.
> 
> You have done a good job painting him that way, though....nice hatchet job.
> 
> ...


Thanks...

Did you listen to the confirmation hearing, Part I, on Tuesday?

Source.... he IS A CARD CARRYING ANTI. He has a 32 year resume of being such. I haven't painted him with anything but his own paint. I can give a politician the "benefit of the constituency" doubt for actions taken. But this has a limit. I generously will say, hey, if you acted this way for perhaps 5 terms (10 years), well, that could be simply constituency work, regardless of what side of the issue. But 32 YEARS??? Nope. That is card-carrying ideologue, plain and simple.

With the balance of the Outdoors World opposed, we have NYB and NYSCC sitting there neutral. Kevin Armstrong gave me some "logic" as to why they're not fighting him, all the yadayada. Then he stated that some NYB members in CNY heard me on the Radio with Skip Ritter, touting Gerry Barnhart as a replacement. He then stated, why would NYB support this guy, he has tried to introduce crossbows and the early ML into early archery, plus the flap over the weekend change, et al.

When I asked Mr Armstrong if he believed that Grannis had a better resume than Barnhart, he clammed up, and gave me the old, you're not an official member song and dance dodge.

I find it absolutely mind boggling that these two organizations would try to hard sell their membership (that's what NYSCC has done) on Grannis, saying we need to work with this ANTI, while we bash and abuse our allies who have stellar pro-conservation records, but disagree with one or two points within our group.

If you cannot see an issue in that, I don't know what to say. The days of chucking each other under the bus must end. We must work together to get stronger, not work against each other while embracing and compromising with the enemy. That is the fastest way to ending our sports, which is the goal of Grannis and his ilk.


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> I find it absolutely mind boggling that these two organizations would try to hard sell their membership (that's what NYSCC has done) on Grannis, saying we need to work with this ANTI, while we bash and abuse our allies who have stellar pro-conservation records, but disagree with one or two points within our group.


You are painting with too broad a brush.

I have seen absolutely NO indication that NYB is "hard selling" Grannis. They have not trashed him publicly, as you have, but that does not mean they actively support him.



doctariAFC said:


> If you cannot see an issue in that, I don't know what to say. The days of chucking each other under the bus must end. We must work together to get stronger, not work against each other while embracing and compromising with the enemy. That is the fastest way to ending our sports, which is the goal of Grannis and his ilk.



Ironic. You are willing to chuck NY bowhunters under the bus for crossbows, now you wonder aloud why they do not rush to your service. 

I doubt very much that Grannis wants to end hunting. I believe very strongly that he has the potential to do harm to gunowners' rights and to trapper's rights.

I am in no way defending Grannis. I believe, from a NY sportsman point of view, we could do better. (I think from an environmentalist point of view, which is the larger part of DEC, the choice makes some sense.) The two are not without some commonality, however, which means he is not the worst choice for the job.

Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you do not. Perhaps that is the NYB and NYSSC point of view?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

thesource said:


> You are painting with too broad a brush.
> 
> I have seen absolutely NO indication that NYB is "hard selling" Grannis. They have not trashed him publicly, as you have, but that does not mean they actively support him.
> 
> ...


No, there's an agenda at work here, source, and it is a sinister one.

First, how am I painting with too broad a brush? Its his own record, source. He has spent 32 years amassing it. He has a 100% rating from ASPCA and the NY League of Humane Voters (HS of NY), which means he votes THEIR WAY on the issues they are concerned about 100% of the time. He gets a 99% rating from NYAGV and a zero from NRA, NYSRPA and an F from SCOPEny. Again, this means he votes and acts 99% of the time in accordance with the gun control groups. That is his own record. If the brush is broad, I can't do anything about it. 32 years of action creates a lot of paint and a very big brush.

From an environmental point of view, it doesn't make sense. HIs supposed strengths are nothing of the sort. HIs biggest accomplishments in this arena are the bottle deposit laws and the clean indoor air act. When listening to his confirmation hearing, part 1, the answers he provided in the areas he is supposed to excel were not very impressive at all. In fact, the answers he gave sounded like they were prepared by an intern, not a suppposed "expert" in the areas he is being showered with praise over.

I am not chucking NYB under the bus for their stance on crossbows. I am chucking them under the bus for their inability to work with their allies (other hunters - and this is not limited to crossbows only), while showing an apparent willingness to work with our enemies.

Not a hard sell? I guess you really need to hear it first hand. I certainly did on March 3, during the Erie County Federation Banquet from Harold Palmer and particularly Wally John. I got the same stuff from Armstrong.

Incidentally, I found out another piece of info last night which I will not post at this time here. Goes to the "sinister" thing that I referred to. I'll PM you that tidbit.

Something is definitely rotten in Denmark.


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

As I stated, I am not defending him. I feel their are better choices for the position.

I have contacted my State Representatives and made them aware of my opinion.

BUT...I still think that perhaps the NYB and NYSCC position may be the wisest one.

IF he is approved (and that certainly could happen, given political processes) they have not burned their bridges.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

thesource said:


> As I stated, I am not defending him. I feel their are better choices for the position.
> 
> I have contacted my State Representatives and made them aware of my opinion.
> 
> ...


Yes, I understand their reasoning, too. And I would normally agree with this position IF very few other organizations had stood up and joined the fight. 

However, this is not the case. In fact, NYSCC and NYB are the only sportsmen's orgs of note NOT to join the fight. 

Again, I understand where they're coming from, but as it stands right now, the confirmatioon vote is going to be very, very close. IN the early days of this process, NYSCC was telling everyone "Its a done deal, no sense in fighting it". That is far from the case now.

If the vote is a runaway, then they were correct. However, if the vote is as close as it appears to be, I have to wonder whether full unity would put it over the top?

I think the PM I sent you explains a lot. The fact that they misrepresented the legal stuff I explained is great cause for concern. I can tell you the Erie County Federation is VERY DISTURBED by this deceipt.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Interesting REad from the Hudson Valley News:



> NYSCC remains neutral on Grannis
> 
> Dick Nelson, Hudson Valley Newspapers
> 
> ...


I heard the vote was 29-27, but 24-22 is the same 2-vote margin.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

ttt


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

ttt


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

doctariAFC said:


> Yes, I understand their reasoning, too. And I would normally agree with this position IF very few other organizations had stood up and joined the fight.
> 
> However, this is not the case. In fact, NYSCC and NYB are the only sportsmen's orgs of note NOT to join the fight.


They must feel that just maybe the argument in the future with Grannis leading the way won't be about whether crossbows are allowed in archery season, but whether there will be an archery season.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip (Dec 30, 2005)

good luck and skills gents


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

> This is just classic! Hey, NYSSC, and NYB, are you watching this stuff??





> I am not chucking NYB under the bus for their stance on crossbows. I am chucking them under the bus for their inability to work with their allies (other hunters - and this is not limited to crossbows only), while showing an apparent willingness to work with our enemies.



These are the reasons I am not renewing my NYB membership after 5 years.

They are so absorbed with the xbow thing, they have become mainly a one trick pony who are rapidly losing any support and credibility among the 200,000 bowhunters in NY. When xbows do come, and they will - NYB will have expended all their political clout and will having nothing.



Steve


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

Here is a response from NYB to me questioning the failure to take a position on Grannis:



> For the record: New York Bowhunters (NYB) has refrained from entering the Grannis debate because it would be illegal for us to endorse or oppose his appointment. We are a not-for-profit educational orginization. The law clearly defines the limits of our political activity.
> 
> NYB encourages our members to take what ever political action they deem necessary with regard to the Grannis nomination, however, members must act on their own in this instance.
> 
> ...



All fine and good EXCEPT for the following info which has come to my attention:



> According to NYB's bylaws, they are a 501(c)(7) organization. They are not a 501(c)(3) organization, which includes non profit educational orgs.
> 
> "501(c)(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
> 
> ...


So which is it?

Steve


----------



## cynic (Jan 25, 2006)

Maybe they like the idea of having an ally with power helping them to keep others out of the woods. IDK


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

I asked Kevin publically if in fact NYB is a 501(c)(7) - non educational org.

His reply was to ask me if I was a member - because if not, he owed me no reply!!

Classic dodge.

Steve


----------



## deerhaven (Feb 2, 2005)

*14 years an NYB member and I'm dropping out too*



SteveB said:


> These are the reasons I am not renewing my NYB membership after 5 years.
> 
> They are so absorbed with the xbow thing, they have become mainly a one trick pony who are rapidly losing any support and credibility among the 200,000 bowhunters in NY. When xbows do come, and they will - NYB will have expended all their political clout and will having nothing.
> 
> ...


this latest Grannis nomination and NYB's lack of action and ineptness and obviously their lack of knowledge of just what kind of org they are (501 - 7 OR 3) and their apparent lack of truth is more than enough for me to drop out after a faithful 14 years as a member. it is a real shme too. NYS is in dire need of a REAL bowhunters org.


----------

