Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="okiebryan" data-source="post: 2126622" data-attributes="member: 24457">I spoke to the Spencer Chief last night for more than an hour.&nbsp; It was a very pleasant conversation.&nbsp; He definitely feels that he was blindsided and used.&nbsp; He said that the two Oklahoma chiefs were the only ones who were called out by name, and he was very confused by that.&nbsp; He was totally unaware of who Feinstein was or what her bill was about.&nbsp; He accepted the invitation to DC because he wants gun violence to decrease and wanted to be a part of that conversation.&nbsp; Said he get to meet with Inhofe and a few others before the Feinstein show.He also doesn&#039;t understand why it is that Bill Citty says all kinds of unpopular stuff about guns, and nobody says peep.&nbsp; Then he gets a ton of criticism after his trip.&nbsp; I told him that people expect a big city chief to say these kinds of things, but that smaller town chiefs usually know better that gun control is a bad idea.&nbsp;He is unequivocally opposed to any gun bans.&nbsp; He&#039;s in favor of &quot;strengthening&quot; background checks, but wouldn&#039;t say whether that would include UBC. He was citing incidents at some flea market where minor gang bangers are getting guns.&nbsp; I told him that&#039;s already illegal, but he&#039;s thinking that more laws will stop this from happening?&nbsp; He wants mental health information shared with NICS.&nbsp; The biggest issue I see is that he doesn&#039;t exactly understand how the process works quite as well as we do.We had a lot of discussion about stopping mass shooters.&nbsp; He heard a lot of what I said and I may have enlightened him a little. He&#039;s not 100% on our side, but he&#039;s not the boogeyman that the Feinstein introduction makes him appear to be.&nbsp; All in all, it was a pleasant conversation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="okiebryan, post: 2126622, member: 24457"] I spoke to the Spencer Chief last night for more than an hour. It was a very pleasant conversation. He definitely feels that he was blindsided and used. He said that the two Oklahoma chiefs were the only ones who were called out by name, and he was very confused by that. He was totally unaware of who Feinstein was or what her bill was about. He accepted the invitation to DC because he wants gun violence to decrease and wanted to be a part of that conversation. Said he get to meet with Inhofe and a few others before the Feinstein show. He also doesn't understand why it is that Bill Citty says all kinds of unpopular stuff about guns, and nobody says peep. Then he gets a ton of criticism after his trip. I told him that people expect a big city chief to say these kinds of things, but that smaller town chiefs usually know better that gun control is a bad idea. He is unequivocally opposed to any gun bans. He's in favor of "strengthening" background checks, but wouldn't say whether that would include UBC. He was citing incidents at some flea market where minor gang bangers are getting guns. I told him that's already illegal, but he's thinking that more laws will stop this from happening? He wants mental health information shared with NICS. The biggest issue I see is that he doesn't exactly understand how the process works quite as well as we do. We had a lot of discussion about stopping mass shooters. He heard a lot of what I said and I may have enlightened him a little. He's not 100% on our side, but he's not the boogeyman that the Feinstein introduction makes him appear to be. All in all, it was a pleasant conversation. [/QUOTE]

Verification