What happens next for conservatives in California?
The June 8 California primary election is now over. Over the last year or so, many conservatives throughout the state have been stirred to action. People who had never taken part in the election process before became active participants in the campaigns of certain candidates in whom they trusted. Unlike in previous years, when many conservatives felt that they did not have any real candidates who stood up for the issues that they believed in, this year was different. Countless hours of volunteer work were put in, and millions of dollars were contributed in the hopes of getting a true conservative elected in California.
And now that the primary is over, many of those candidates who were favored by true conservative are no longer standing. Whether it was because their opposition was simply too well funded (either by the opposing candidates’ own deep pockets or because of the influence of wealthy special interest groups) or because the grassroots efforts simply were not enough to overcome the established political structure, we are now left with very few true conservative choices remaining amongst the candidates who are running for public office.
So, what happens now? Where does all of the pent up energy of the people, the energy that up until now had been expended on the campaigns of the true conservative candidates, go? Do these people, the ones who are resolutely committed to principle, simply lose interest and fade away from the political landscape, having lost all hope that anything truly monumental can happen in California politics? Or do these people somehow manage to swallow their pride, hold their noses, and work to support the lesser of the two remaining poor choices in whatever race they had been working on previously?
There is a different choice available out there. I would hope that the energy of all of these principled people can somehow be harnessed into accomplishing something truly special. After the primary election, there are only a few true conservative candidates remaining. If we can take the energy and effort and fundraising abilities of people throughout the State of California who are interested in getting a true conservative elected into office and somehow focus all of that energy into a few key races where a true conservative candidate still remains, then we can pull off the unexpected.
I am running for State Assembly in California’s 20th District (Fremont, Newark, Union City, Milpitas). Going into the primary election, I managed to clear the field of all other conservative candidates. As a result, I ran opposed on June 8. At the same time, the two Democrats running for AD20 were busy raising hundreds of thousands of dollars in special interest contributions and slugging it out amongst each other to get the Democratic nomination.
You see, according to conventional wisdom, whoever wound up winning the Democratic nomination for AD20 was assumed to already have won the seat in November. Because of voter registration numbers, money, name recognition, and the strength of the Democratic political machine in the Bay Area, the belief is that a true conservative candidate could never win in AD20. Well, on June 8, Bob Wieckowski wound up securing the Democratic nomination. I guarantee you that, in his mind, he believes that he will be in Sacramento during the next session of the State Assembly convenes. If he hasn’t already done so, he is already hiring a staff and deciding the logistics of his transition to the Capitol. To him, the general election in November is already a forgone conclusion. He is all set to go to the statehouse and begin implementing big government legislation and a methodically strip citizens of their liberties and individual ability on how to choose to live their lives.
Doesn’t it make you angry that conservatives are already an afterthought in the mind of Bob Wieckowski? He couldn’t care less about us.
But imagine if all of the principled people throughout the state, those who no longer have a true conservative in any State Legislative race in their district remaining, or those who are unhappy with any of the candidates running for statewide office, decided to back me in my race for State Assembly. All of a sudden, we could take away the certainty that Bob Wieckowski has in that he will automatically be selected to go to Sacramento in the November election. If we all worked together, we could possibly pull off a huge upset.
Imagine if we could somehow elect a conservative to the statehouse from the liberal Bay Area. That would be an incredible testament to the power of the people to change the status quo. Do you see how powerful of a message that would be? It would be something that could shake up California politics for decades.
Something that bears keeping in mind is that, as an Assemblymember, I would be able to introduce legislation that could benefit citizens throughout the state. No matter where a person lives, if that person has an issue that is consistent with my beliefs, then I would not hesitate to push for that cause. And on the floor of the Assembly, I would be an outspoken advocate of conservative principles and would stand against legislation that would attempt to subvert what I and so many others believe in. In effect, I could be an Assemblymember who represented any person in the State of California who believed in a conservative point of view, regardless of what Assembly District they live in.
All we have to do is get a true conservative’s foot in the door. After that happens, I guarantee that I will be a force that the State of California has never seen the likes of before.
Adnan Shahab is a candidate for State Assembly in California’s 20th District. You can visit his official campaign website at http://www.shahab2010.com
Open Carry, AB 1934, and Responsible Citizens of California
When I first became aware that Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) was planning to create a new law to ban the open carry of unloaded forearms in the State of California, one of my first reactions was to attempt to personally reach out and speak with her. After all, I was not only one of the leading advocates of open carry in the San Francisco Bay Area, but I was also a candidate for the California State Assembly.
I called Saldana’s various offices numerous times and let her staff know that I was interested in speaking with her about the legislation she was crafting. I let her staff know that I was concerned that Saldana might not have all of the facts about open carry and that I wanted to make sure she fully understood the issue before introducing any legislation that could affect open carry. Over the course of a few weeks, it got to the point where almost every member of her staff knew exactly who I was when I called, and they all assured me that Saldana would speak with me as soon as she had a moment in her hectic schedule.
I never wound up getting a call from Saldana. Needless to say, I was a bit taken aback when I was contacted by a local television news reporter and informed that Saldana was planning on holding a press conference the next morning to talk about the legislation that she would be introducing to ban open carry in California. That piece of legislation is AB 1934.
After seeing media coverage of Saldana’s press conference, it was quite obvious that she had introduced her legislation without completely understanding open carry. Saldana appeared to be under the impression that open carriers were some sort of a fringe group that was simply interested in demonstrating their right to carry firearms. She seemed to believe it was more of a First Amendment issue rather than a Second Amendment issue.
Admittedly, there are some open carriers who seem to want to exercise their right to bear arms as a statement against an overreaching government and a display of a willingness to fight to keep one’s rights. But this characterizes the intention of a very small portion of those who open carry. Various media reports of gatherings or “meetups” of open carriers described the events as “protests” or “demonstration”. Terminology such as this mischaracterizes the true intentions of most of carriers.
Most of the people who open carry do so simply because they want to be equipped to be able to properly defend themselves if their life or the life of anyone in their immediate vicinity were to ever be put in danger. These are law-abiding citizens who go out of their way to remain in compliance with the law. One can never know when they are about to become a victim of a violent crime. Open carriers realize that if their life is put in danger, the odds are that a law enforcement officer will not be around. And especially considering the recent budget cuts and reduced staffing levels of law enforcement agencies throughout the state, it could take a very long time before any peace officer arrived at the scene of a crime. By then, the perpetrator will be long gone, and the victim could be dead or seriously wounded. Open carriers realize that there is a very real chance that they will have to fend for themselves if a criminal ever decided to put them in danger of grave harm.
At her press conference, Saldana cited the fact that there have been open carry meetups throughout the state, at which large numbers of open carriers gathered in public locations, such as beaches, coffee shops, and restaurants. She seemed to insiunuate that open carriers did so in order to intimidate people. This left me wondering a couple of things. Who exactly did Saldana think the open carriers were trying to intimidate? And what was the supposed reason for trying to intimidate people? Of course, the entire notion of open carriers trying to intimidate people is ridiculous. The true purpose of the open carry meetups is quite simple. Any time people develop a common interest in something, it is only natural for those people to want to get together to meet with each other and discuss their experiences. The meetups also gave people who were new to the idea of open carry an opportunity to meet face-to-face with the more experienced open carriers and get firsthand advice on what to expect from both the general public and law enforcement while open carrying. And there is also an education aspect to the meetups. Open carriers meeting in groups often carry informational pamphlets detailing various aspects of the law with them. Members of the general public, seeing people open carrying, naturally have a lot of questions, and open carriers are eager to share their knowledge.
Before going any further, an important point must be emphasized. The open carry movement does not revolve around group meetups. The ideal situation is to one day have the general public and law enforcement educated enough about open carry where individual open carriers can go about their daily lives without fearing that “man with a gun” calls will be placed to local law enforcement and that the open carrier will not be confronted by law enforcement at gunpoint, proned out on the ground, and detained for doing absolutely nothing against the law. But it is the fear that such situations can occur that makes it easier for new open carriers to do so at meetups, in the company of knowledgeable friends, at first.
Saldana’s press conference also seemed to indicate that open carriers somehow pose a risk to public safety. She showed a supposedly informative video in which an actor placed a loaded magazine into an unloaded firearm in a matter of seconds, making the gun ready to fire. Again, this emphasis on her part clearly showed that Saldana did not understand the goal of open carriers. A citizen who is open carrying for self-protection wants to be able to load the firearm and have it ready to use for self-defense in a short period of time. After all, an unloaded firearm is not very useful. Interestingly, California is one of 43 states that currently allows for the open carry of firearms, but it is the only state in which the openly carried firearm must be unloaded. That load condition leaves the citizens of California in a more vulnerable position than open carriers in other states. So, the very thing that Saldana tried to cite as a danger to public safety, being able to load one’s firearm quickly in order to defend oneself, is something that is necessary for self-protection. She was completely clueless as to what she was talking about.
Various pro-gun and anti-gun groups can start make a person’s head spin by citing countless studies and anecdotal evidence suggesting that carrying a firearm makes either an individual or society as a whole more or less safe. But the fact remains that open carry is not a new right. Open carry has been legal for decades, and there is not a single example of an open carrier in California being involved in any sort of gun-related accident where upon society was put in danger.
The California Constitution states “the United States Constitution if the supreme law of the land.” The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution state that the natural “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution also states that all people have certain inalienable rights, and among these are “enjoying and defending life and liberty”, as well as “pursuing and obtaining safety”. That is exactly why open carriers believe wholeheartedly in their right to carry firearms for self-protection.
If AB 1934 becomes law, the right of most people to carry a firearm for self-protection in California will disappear. For those who argue that concealed carry is a viable alternative to open carry, it must be clearly stated that California’s system of issuing concealed weapons permits makes it almost impossible for an average citizens to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm. In most of the heavily populated counties of California, unless one is rich, famous, and/or well-connected politically, one will be found to not have “good cause” to warrant being issued a concealed weapons permit. Thus, if open carry becomes illegal in California, then the right to carry a firearm will, in effect, be taken away from all but the most elite of California’s citizens. That is not equal treatment under the law.
Laws are already on the books restricting who is allowed to open carry. Convicted felons, those with restraining orders against them, known gang members, and those intending to commit a crime are not allowed to open carry. The current penal code authorizes peace officers the authority to examine a firearm to verify that it is unloaded. Anybody who is not authorized to open carry would be foolish to attempt to do so as the additional scrutiny by law enforcement caused by openly carrying, as well as the authorized interaction with open carriers written into the penal code, would leave unauthorized open carriers susceptible to being found in violation of the law. A criminal who intends to maintain the element of surprise when confronting a potential victim will most likely illegally carry a concealed firearm instead of open carrying.
It is the illegally concealed firearms that are carried by criminals that should continue to worry law enforcement and the general public at all times, not the firearms that are openly carried for personal protection by law-abiding citizens who go out of their way to remain in compliance with the law. No matter what laws are passed, the criminals will continue to carry illegally. Laws restricting law-abiding citizens from being able to carry firearms will only serve to make the common man an easier target for violent criminals.
It is also important to note that Saldana has claimed that open carriers cause a drain on limited law enforcement resources. Penal code section 12031(e) authorizes peace officers to inspect the load condition of an openly carried firearm, but it does not mandate the inspection. As more and more people in society become educated about California’s open carry laws, there will be fewer calls to law enforcement about open carriers. As police dispatchers are trained to ask pertinent questions when “man with a gun” calls come in, law enforcement resources will not be misallocated to deal with situations that do not warrant any action. For example, if a person is brandishing a firearm or acting in a threatening manner (which are both already against the law), then law enforcement should clearly be dispatched to the scene. But if an open carrier is simply sipping on a cup of coffee while reading a newspaper, then there is absolutely no need to dispatch law enforcement to deal with the person. Law enforcement in 43 other states is perfectly capable of responding (or not responding) to open carriers based on the totality of the situation. Why would anyone assume that officers in California are any less capable than the officers in the other states to do the same?
Some will argue that the mere presence of gun is a threat to officer safety. This is more of an emotional reaction than a rational one. There is nothing inherent about law-abiding citizens openly carrying firearms that poses an additional threat to officer safety. A properly trained officer should approach any situation with caution, as they never know who the criminal with an illegally concealed weapon might be. In fact, I have personally heard from numerous officers in other states who say that they do not see open carry much of an issue at all. They are accustomed to it. It is simply a matter of training. In California, many officers are trained to immediately recognize a gun as a threat and go into crisis mode, no matter how the individual is behaving. This leaves the officer with little ability to use common sense to evaluate the situation. Officers in other states are trained quite differently. There is no reason why law enforcement officers in California cannot be trained in the same way as the officers in the other 43 states where open carry is legal.
Eventually, the question of open carry comes down to whether the government should be in the habit of taking away inalienable rights from the people. As stated before, open carry is an old right, not a new one. Should the government be allowed to take that right away from the people? I would argue that the answer is a resounding “no”. Allow each law abiding citizen to continue to have the choice to decide whether he or she wishes to carry a firearm for personal protection. The people should be trusted by the government to behave in a responsible manner and do the right thing. But of course, with rights come responsibility. Any person who behaves irresponsibly with a firearm should be willing to face the consequences of doing so.
A few weeks ago, after open carrying for months, I was approached by a group of concerned citizens who felt that it was time for the open carry movement to become more organized. Galvanized by Lori Saldana’s anti-open carry AB 1934, this brand new non-profit group, the Responsible Citizens of California (http://www.responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org), asked me to become a major part of their organization. This organization is dedicated to defending open carry rights and pushing for shall-issue concealed carry permits in California. Already pressed for time due to my campaign for State Assembly and my full-time regular job, I was at first reluctant to take on the additional duties and commitments of this non-profit organization. But after thinking about it and realizing that my personal beliefs line up perfectly with those of the Responsible Citizens of California, I agreed to become a member of their Board of Directors. Additionally, I have been named the Executive Vice President of the Responsible Citizens of California. I look forward to continuing to push for carry rights in California with the Responsible Citizens of California.
And, so, here we are. AB 1934 is slowly but surely making its way through the California Legislature. It has passed in both the Assembly Public Safety Committee and the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a party-line vote, with the Democrats supporting it and the Republicans voting against it. AB 1934 could come up before a vote on the Assembly floor any day now. I have no idea what will happen. But I intend to fight against AB 1934 and defend the right of law abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection in the State of California.
Now, as an open carry advocate and State Assembly candidate, I have been asked by the Commonwealth Club to take part in a debate on open carry. The debate will take place on June 17 in Lafayette, California (http://tickets.commonwealthclub.org/auto_choose_ga.asp?area=171&shcode=1850). After agreeing to participate in the debate, I was informed that Assemblywoman Lori Saldana will also be taking part in the debate. After months of trying to sit down with her to discuss the issue of open carry, I will finally have my chance to prove that she is on the wrong side of this issue. I am definitely looking forward to it.
Adnan Shahab is a candidate for State Assembly is California’s 20th District. You can visit his official campaign website at http://www.shahab2010.com
AB 1934
I have been in a foul mood since this afternoon. I’ll get to the reason why in a little bit.
About one year ago, I decided to run for the California State Assembly. Over the last few years, it became increasingly apparent to me that there are people in this country who do not believe in the same sort of United States that I believe in. Many people do not seem to believe in things like the United State Constitution, thinking that the words contained in that contract between the government and the people do not really mean much of anything. There are also those who believe that the government is infinitely wise. These people seem to think that we should continue to give up more of our individuals liberties to the all-knowing government and allow our elected officials to behave as wise parental figures.
Well, I believe the United States Constitution actually means something. I value it, and I respect it. It is a travesty that so many elected officials, all of whom swear allegiance to the Constitution when they take office, do not take the Constitution seriously. I also believe in a limited government. I had a father. He passed away in 2007, and he was a great man. I have a mother, and she is a great woman. I do not need, nor do I want, the government to try to act like it is wiser than me and can tell me what to do. I refuse to surrender my rights to the government.
I started noticing how our elected officials in Sacramento continued to be passing laws that did not make any sort of sense. The tendency was to continue to impose more restrictions on the behavior of the citizens. On top of that, these elected officials had a nasty tendency to want to raise taxes and fees whenever they could. In effect, they were taking away our rights and our money, and they felt that they, in their wisdom, could decide which rights we should be able to continue to enjoy and what our money should be spent on.
All of this seemed insane to me. Fed up with seeing what was going on, I decided to run for State Assembly. I was tired of simply being upset; I wanted to fix the problem. If the people in Sacramento were doing things in the wrong way, I wanted to go to state Capitol and start doing things the right way.
Then we got around to the issue of unloaded open carry (UOC). In the State of California, it is virtually impossible for most average citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits (CCW). In most heavily populated counties, unless a person is rich, famous, and/or well-connected, the ability to carry a concealed firearm in order to protect oneself is denied by the government. Before I go any further, I want to stress the point that the police are not always around. If your life is put in jeopardy, it could be minutes or hours until the police arrive. The only person you can depend on to protect you when you need it is yourself.
About five years ago, I applied for a CCW in Alameda County, and I was denied by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. In the intervening years, I have applied for non-resident CCWs from other states, even traveling outside of California in order to train and pass their licensing procedures. As a result, I am currently allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm in 32 states. And yet California, the state that I was born and raised in, and the state where I spend the vast majority of my time in, denies me the right to carry a concealed weapon to protect myself with. The fact remains that, because of the amount of time that I spend in California, if my life were to ever be put in danger, it would most likely occur in California. But my state government has taken the right to defend myself with a concealed weapon away from me. It isn’t right, but it’s reality in California.
Then last December, I became aware of the fact that the unloaded open carry of firearms was legal in California, as long as one does not do so in certain restricted areas (e.g. within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school, in government buildings, etc.). As long as a person is not in a restricted category (e.g. not a gang member, no restraining orders against them, no intention to commit a crime), law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry ammunition for that firearm on their persons, thus allowing the individual to be able to protect him or herself if the situation were to ever arise. Speaking for myself, I viewed unloaded open carry as an inferior means of self defense as compared to concealed carry. But concealed carry was not available to me, so I looked into the only legal means that was available for me to be able to protect myself. It was the next-best option.
After spending a month researching the intricacies of UOC, I finally tried it out with a couple of others who were interested in the issue. And that’s where it all took off. I quickly became one of the most visible and most outspoken advocates of UOC in California. I can’t even remember the number of newspaper of television news interviews that I have done in the past four months. I wanted to educate my fellow citizens about their rights. And if they decided that they wanted to open carry, I wanted to make sure they did so in full compliance with the law.
Sure, there were some who did not like the idea of me open carrying and advocating for UOC. Some gun owners felt that doing so would result in the State Legislature reacting by taking away the right to UOC. To that, I argued that, if we had to refrain from open carrying in order to retain the right to open carry, then we have, in effect already lost the right. Others, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, tried to say that open carriers were trying to intimidate people. That made absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to intimidate people? By that logic, what did they think I was trying to accomplish by intimidating people? If anything, I was only trying to deter criminals from looking at law-abiding citizens as easy prey. Some tried to argue that, by the mere fact that I had a gun on my person, I was somehow endangering society. Again, that made no sense. The only time that firearm was going to leave its holster would be if I or someone in my immediate vicinity were facing grave bodily harm. I am not some sort of vigilante who is looking to go out and fight crime. I hope that I will never have to use my firearm to defend my life or the life of someone else. I respect firearms, and I know how to properly operate them. So, having a firearm on my person does not endanger society. And some even tried to insist that a criminal would easily be able to take my unloaded firearm away from me and use it against me. Well, I voluntarily agreed to meet up with law enforcement officials to allow them to inspect my firearm before certain open carry meetups. Even while being fully compliant with them, the officers had a difficult time removing my firearm from its holster. Imagine how difficult it would be for a criminal to take my firearm away from me if I were actually resisting.
But there’s even more insanity out there. Some people said that criminals would start open carrying. From a logical standpoint, that makes no sense. Law enforcement officers in California have the right to inspect the firearm of an open carrier to ensure that it is not loaded. By open carrying, an individual draws additional attention to oneself. A criminal would want to maintain the element of surprise, not open themselves to intensified scrutiny. If anything, law enforcement officers should fear the criminal who is illegally carrying a concealed weapon, not the law-abiding citizen who is openly carrying. Then there was the argument that law enforcement officers could not tell whether an openly carried firearm was loaded or not. The mere fact that a weapon is loaded or not does not endanger society; it is the behavior of the person in control of the firearm that matters. Like I said before, law enforcement officers have the authority to inspect a firearm to determine whether it is loaded or not. The argument was made that a person could easily load the firearm within two seconds. That’s exactly the point. Open carriers want to be able to load a firearm quickly in order to be able to defend themselves if need be. That’s not an argument against open carry; it is merely a statement of fact as to how unloaded open carry leaves law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage to criminals. I’d rather be at a two second disadvantage than have absolutely no tool as my disposal to defend myself with. (For those who argue that a criminal might decide to shoot me because they see me openly carrying, that is not really an argument that I buy into. Even if I were to get shot preemptively, which I think is highly unlikely, it is my choice to put myself in that position. If anything, that would make everyone else around me safer because they would have extra time to evacuate the scene while the criminal was busy with me. Realistically, though, a criminal would most likely be deterred from committing a crime if they saw an armed person who is clearly interested in protecting themself in the area) But going back to law enforcement’s argument, they should not fear the law-abiding citizen who is open carrying any more than anyone else they might encounter. They should approach all people with caution because they never know who the criminals with illegally concealed loaded weapons are.
Some have also argued that unloaded open carriers are an additional drain on law enforcement resources. Penal code section 12031(e) gives law enforcement officers the authority to inspect a firearm to determine whether it is loaded; however, it is not mandatory to do so. Properly trained police dispatchers should already be asking relevant questions. Is the individual acting in a threatening manner? Is the individual brandishing their firearm? Or is the person simply sipping on some coffee and having a pleasant conversation with a group of friends? Depending on the answers to these questions, law enforcement should be able to determine whether resources should be allocated to deal with an instance of an individual carrying a firearm openly. Keep in mind, open carry is legal in the vast majority of the states. Law enforcement seems to be capable of dealing with open carriers in those other states. Why is it that law enforcement in California cannot do the same?
And so, we finally get to why I have been in a foul mood since this afternoon. A number of weeks ago, Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) introduced AB 1934, which would ban unloaded open carry in California. Since it is virtually impossible for most citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits, passage of AB 1934 would essentially take away any legal option for law-abiding citizens to be able to carry firearms in order to protect themselves. AB 1934 will disarm the good, honest citizens, but it will do nothing to stop criminals to continue to illegally carry concealed firearms and perpetrate heinous acts against the public.
Last week, I became aware of the fact that AB 1934 would be going before the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee today. If four of the seven members of the PSC voted against AB 1934, the bill would be dead. I, as well as many others, have spent the last few days rallying supporters of open carry. We contacted the members of the PSC and voiced our opinion about how they should vote “No” on AB 1934. Earlier today, the PSC voted 4-2 to approve AB1934. As a result, the bill will continue to wind its way through the Assembly. AB 1934 will next go before the Appropriations panel. You can be sure that I, as well as many other supporters of open carry will continue to contact state lawmakers and make our voices heard.
I don’t know how any of this will turn out. It is my hope that sanity will ultimately prevail and the Democratic-controlled Legislature will allow law-abiding citizens to be able to carry firearms in order to protect themselves. But if we are not able to stop AB 1934, I would hope that the people of California will learn from this experience. I want them to see how out of touch many of our elected officials are and how little they respect the rights of the average citizen. We need to thoroughly evaluate our elected officials before they get into office, because once they’re there, they can hurt the people in many different ways.
If AB 1934 continues to move forward, I would hope that the people of California will see how much damage one single Legislator (in this case, Lori Saldana) can do. But it can go the other way as well. One Legislator can bring about good as well. I hope that gun owners, not only in Assembly District 20, but throughout the state and throughout the nation, will support my campaign for State Assembly. I hope that citizens who believe in the right to protect oneself will support my campaign for State Assembly. I hope that people who believe in stopping the government from infringing upon our rights and dictating to us how we should live our lives will support my campaign for State Assembly.
One person can make a huge difference. I truly believe that I can stop the damage that is going on in Sacramento. I won’t be able to do it overnight. California has been descending into madness for decades, and it will take many years to solve all of the problems. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I am asking the responsible members of society to help me take that first step. Help me win my race for California State Assembly in the 20th District.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Assembly District 20 Campaign Finance Disclosures
I just read an article by Matthew Artz in today’s The Argus newspaper. According to campaign finance reports filed by Democratic candidates running for Assembly District 20 (the same Assembly seat that I am running for as a Republican), Ohlone College Trustee Garrett Yee has thus far outraised Fremont Councilman Bob Wieckowski.
In 2009, Yee raised $131,329, compared to the $111,281 collected by Wieckowski. But in the latest filing period, which ran from July 2009 through December 2009, Wieckowski outraised Yee $50,810 to $45,744. In addition to these numbers, Yee has loaned his campaign $51,000, and Wieckowski has loaned $5,500 to his campaign.
This is a whole lot of money being raised by these two Democratic candidates to try to buy themselves into the Assembly District 20 seat. Comparing these numbers to what I was able to raise in 2009 (a mere $1,455), it looks like I am going to be outraised by about 100-to-1 with regards to this Assembly race. Hopefully, now that we have entered 2010 and interest in the political landscape seems to be increasing, I should be able to eat into that ratio a little bit in the next few months. But I have absolutely no delusions that I will be able to raise even one-tenth of the amount that each Democrat is raising. But that’s okay.
Life isn’t fair, and I recognize that. This will be a test to see whether voters choose to elect the best candidate or simply the candidate who can raise more money. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I am the best candidate in this race. I am the only candidate who has a vision for government that is not corrupted by special interests. And unlike the other candidates, I am not hesitant to articulate what I believe in and take a stand on the difficult issues. I am willing to hear opposing viewpoints and either point out the error in the logic of others or incorporate valid new theories into my personal outlook on government and the way it interacts with citizens.
I didn’t get into this election because I thought it was going to be easy to win. Knowing the voter registration numbers and past election results in the area, I knew it was going to be an uphill battle. But at some point, one of these Democrats is going to have to stop avoiding me, get in the same room as me, and be prepared to debate me. Thus far, there has been absolutely no desire from either of these two Democrats to do so. In fact, Garrett Yee even left a voicemail for me stating that, since he is running against Wieckowski for the Democratic nomination, he and I aren’t even opponents at this point. I find that to be interesting.
Before I go, I can’t help but being reminded of a quote from The Godfather: Part III. The character of Don Lucchesi says, “Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger.” Well, from these recent campaign disclosure reports, it is obvious that both Democrats are far better financed that my election campaign is. Their guns, so to speak, are far larger than mine. But at the same time, any gun owner knows that shot placement is important. And I have excellent trigger discipline. I only pull the trigger when I am ready to destroy something.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com