John McCann Rocks Voters…Again

San Diego County Gun Owners San Diego County Gun Owners 11 Comments

Share

by Michael A. Schwartz, Executive Director, San Diego County Gun Owners

I just got off the phone with Chula Vista City Council Member John McCann where he spent the entire 20-minute call pretending to be the victim of his own vote at last night’s city council meeting. If you are a Republican who has wondered why California continues to see fewer and fewer elected Republicans, it’s because Democrats stand for something. Without apology or excuse. They stand up for what they believe in and voters respond. Too many Republicans don’t, and then pretend it is good governing. Chula Vista City Council Member John McCann is a great example of the latter.    

August 12, Monday night, John pulled me aside at the Republican Central Committee meeting to show me a resolution he opposed. The resolution called for a federal gun ban like the one California has on most rifles produced today, federal red flag laws, a ban on normal capacity firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and background checks on all firearms transfers nationwide. These are all anti-gun talking points. McCann showed me the resolution and asked me to have a SDCGO Board member talk to Chula Vista Council Member Steve Padilla in hopes of stopping the resolution. John said he would vote against it, but honestly… we talked about that like his “no” vote was a given. It should have been a given. We should have all been able to count on McCann.    

I told John that I would contact the other City Council members to see if I could get a third vote against the resolution (the second vote against it would definitely be Council Member Mike Diaz).    

August 13th, Tuesday, at 11:50 a.m. (yesterday), I received a newer version of the gun ban resolution via email from McCann. There was no message; just the attached resolution. The email contained no information regarding a time or day the resolution would come to council, no indication that John had changed his mind and would vote for it, and no request to talk to me about anything.  

I emailed the resolution to Council Member Mike Diaz, and he and I spoke at 1:14 p.m. Diaz did not like the resolution and told me the vote was happening that night. I knew we could count on his vote and we talked about possible outcomes. Diaz asked me to submit to the council a letter in opposition, and we hung up positive the resolution would fail to get a majority vote at the council.  

I then received an email from Chula Vista Council Member Jill Galvez that turned into a phone call. Galvez and I discussed the resolution and I was confident that she would vote to oppose the it. At 3:36 p.m. I called John and left him a message indicating that it looks like his vote against the resolution would be in the majority. I heard nothing back from McCann and was confident the resolution would rightly fail to pass.  

I was wrong.  

Last night at the Chula Vista City Council meeting, the resolution supporting a federal gun ban, supporting a federal magazine ban, and supporting a federal Red Flag law, passed 3 to 2.  I couldn’t believe it and was positive there was a mistake. 

Republican Mike Diaz and Democrat Jill Galvez voted against it. Democrats Steve Padilla and Mary Salas voted for it. And alleged Republican John McCann, showed his true colors, went back on his word, and joined the ranks of anti-gun extremists by voting in favor of the resolution.  

This resolution isn’t some softball, vaguely worded item. It’s really bad and it’s crystal clear. It’s a gun ban presented by gun grabbers. The resolution calls for the “banning the sale of military-style assault weapons” and banning “high capacity magazines or clips that can hold more than 10 bullets.” This would stop the sale of around 80 percent of long gun sales nationwide. It would reinstate the federal “assault weapon” ban that a July 2004 U.S. Justice Department study authored by Christopher Koper, titled Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, proved had no impact on crime.

However, don’t let the awfulness of the resolution distract you from McCann’s bizarre behavior. He asked me for help whipping votes against the resolution; I helped him get the votes he needed; he didn’t return my phone message to him; and then he voted for the resolution he said he abhorred.  

That brings me back to this morning. After texting McCann, he called me to try and explain himself. His explanation was that the vote didn’t affect Chula Vista gun owners because they are already living under these horrible gun laws; that it won’t actually result in any action so why worry about it; that he supports the legality of all the draconian gun laws in California; and then he seemed to imply that part of the reason he voted for the resolution was because one of SDCGO’s board members once supported his political opponent — during an election even before the formation of SDCGO. McCann claimed he called me several times Tuesday and that I didn’t return his calls. I took a screenshot of my call to him at 3:34 p.m. and asked him to do the same. Of course, he was unable to produce.    

I asked McCann directly and repeatedly if the resolution supports a gun ban and his answer was “not in Chula Vista” over and over again. Hilariously, he called me a bully for pointing out the facts of the resolution and his support of it. My response to him was that I now feel like I should be careful in public since he seems to have thrown a rock at the last person he called a bully. (See story about McCann’s alleged rock throwing.)

The responses I have received regarding John’s votes show little surprise at his actions.  

 

Republicans, you have no ally in John McCann. Democrats, you have no friend in John McCann. Voters, you have no advocate in John McCann; he’s in it for himself. A week, a month, a year from now, while watching the news you’ll wonder how politics got so bad. Who elects these people? How do they get into office? How can they be so dishonest? When that happens, remember John McCann.  

Share

Comments 11

  1. “Part of the reason he voted for the resolution was because one of SDCGO’s Board members once supported John’s political opponent during an election before the formation of SDCGO.”

    Petty personal squabbles over principles? Sounds about right.

    “John claimed he called me several times Tuesday and that I didn’t return his calls. I took a screenshot of my call to him at 3:34pm and asked him to do the same. Of course, he was unable to produce.”

    Par for the course. Bottom line; McCann is a liar. He’s perfect for Congress.

    “Republicans, you have no ally in John McCann. Democrats, you have no friend in John McCann. Voters, you have no advocate in John McCann; he’s in it for himself. A week, a month, a year from now, while watching the news wondering you’ll wonder how politics got so bad. Who elects these people?”

    PREDICTION: RPSDC will endorse John McCann for whichever office he runs, ad infinitum.

  2. I am a Democrat. In fact I have a reputation especially amongst Republicans for being a bleeding heart socialist Democrat. Well just know that this bleeding heart socialist Democrat believes under zero circumstances should americans and the American worker be disarmed by the government. McCann has been selling you snake oil for too long. Dont fall for it anymore.

  3. Michael Schwartz is completely misrepresenting Chula Vista’s gun safety resolution. The resolution does not support any additional gun bans in California. Its main points are to support background checks, red flag legislation when people consistently threaten to shoot people and additional mental heath care. These are things he clearly does not support. Obviously Schwartz did not read the resolution. He is clearly paranoid and has a wild imagination. So many of the ideas in his article are NOT in the resolution. Again, Schwartz is in it for profit and political gain.

    I was at the City Council meeting and SCHWARTZ WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. As a paid lobbyist he should have been there, but typical Schwartz, he screws up and blames someone else.

    Jimmy Castro

  4. I think you are missing the point, Mr. Castro; McCann lied.

    The resolution could have read “The Chula Vista Council wants gun owners to be safe” and it STILL doesn’t matter. Here is why:

    1- McCann solicited help from SDGOA, specifically to “whip votes” to defeat said resolution.
    2- Schwartz delivered.
    3- McCann hid from Schwartz, then voted for the very resolution he asked for help to defeat.

    My best guess is that McCann intended to vote for the resolution and wanted to go through the motions with SDGOA to say “Ah heck, I tried.” He didn’t count on us being as effective as we are.

  5. It’s weird that Jimmy Castro’s statement is so similar to the excuses John McCann made to me over the phone the morning after he voted for a gun ban. Almost verbatim. Coincidence. Hmmm…

    Anywho…Jimmy, this is right from the resolution that yo-…er, I mean John McCann sent me.

    “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED in order to help protect our residents,
    neighborhoods and schools, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ask the U.S. Congress to take all possible steps to reduce access to and the violent use of guns in America by:
    1. Banning the sale of military-style assault weapons as well as high-capacity magazines or clips that can hold more than 10 bullets at a time;
    2. Requiring all gun buyers to pass a comprehensive background check, no matter how they purchase the weapon;
    3. Passing national “Extreme Risk” laws (also known as a “Red Flag” laws) to take guns out of the hands of persons who may present a danger to others or themselves; and,
    4. Supporting the availability and funding of mental health and substance abuse treatment programs, and enhanced mental health services for children, so all individuals who are in need of
    help have sufficient access to these services.”

    Had the resolution JUST been what you describe, Jimmy Castro, then I doubt we’d be having this discussion, but the reality is the resolution calls for the ban of MOST rifles sold today. That’s a gun ban, friendo.

    And banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is in fact a magazine ban that would change the law across the country and likely further cement into law what Second Amendment supporters are fighting in California courts right now.

    National red flag laws call for taking guns away from people who have not broken a law. We do not need red flag laws to take guns away from people who are a threat to “themselves or others.”

    Jimmy, this is all stuff John and I spoke about. You are right about one thing…I wasn’t there that night.I took John at his word that he would vote against this resolution and that was a major mistake on my part. I promise you that I, and many of his former supporters, will never, ever take John at his “word” ever again.

    John screwed up. He made a mistake. Leaders admit to their mistake and fix it. I encourage John to fix this mistake like so many are asking him to do.

  6. Michael,

    “We do not need red flag laws to take guns away from people who are a threat to ‘themselves or others.'” 75% of self-described Trump voters disagree with you.

    (https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/15/surprising-support-gun-control-among-trump-voters-three-charts/?noredirect=on)

    From the same article: 90% of Trump voters are in favor of universal background checks including those buying at gun shows and private sales.”

    If you insist on fighting proposals that an overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of, you run the risk of having much worse actually passed or even worse, becoming irrelevant.

  7. “Had the resolution JUST been what you describe, Jimmy Castro, then I doubt we’d be having this discussion, but the reality is the resolution calls for the ban of MOST rifles sold today. That’s a gun ban, friendo.”

    Owning a gun is a protected right. The government taking it away is unconstitutional.

    HQ, your party supported owning human beings because they wanted farm labor. It was very popular with voters. Fortunately, Republicans stood up to unpopular natural rights then too.

  8. Michael,

    “Owning a gun is a protected right.”

    So is freedom of speech but we still have sensible laws that restrict that freedom in some cases.

    “(Owning people) was very popular with the voters.”

    Not with the “anti-slavery” party. You miss the point that 90% of the PRO-gun party is in favor of the proposed gun control laws that you are fighting against.

    As for Southern Democrats from the 1800’s through early 1960’s being racist and for a time pro-slavery, you are correct. However, when Democratic President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, those racists re-registered as Republians and are still Republicans today.

  9. The Southern Democrats switching is the biggest lie told in politics today. A little research and looking at those who actually switched versus those who did quickly shows the myth but it’s one that is only now being shattered because of the Internet.

    #STOPTHELIES; the racist Southern Democrats remained in their party and data – across the board at every level – shows their “Great War on Poverty” was a purposeful failure that still keeps black Americans and now my own brethren down.

    Simply use a search of something called “The Googlez” and you’ll see yourself as well my friends. Here’s a link to those too lazy: https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/

    That includes a discussion of the Southern Strategy employed by Nixon. As a Latino who lived in the South, it sickens me how racist Democrats keep this lie going at the expense of the good people in the South.

  10. William,

    Interesting article. Thank you for sharing. However, I am sure that you know how difficult it is (and much more so 50 years ago) to defeat an incumbent legislator. You also know that Carter and Clinton were Southern Governors before they ran for President. I think it would be most instructive to look at how each state voted for President before and after the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, let’s look at four states that I think you would agree epitomize the South – Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state)

    From 1860-1960, these four states combined never voted for a Republican for President. In 1964 they each voted for the Republican candidate even though that candidate only won two other states. Now I wonder what it was that made them turn against President Johnson. Any ideas?

    Since that time, the voters in Alabama have only voted Democrat once (Carter in 1976), Georgia has voted Democrat three times (Native son Carter in 1976 and 1980 and Clinton in 1992 but not in 1996), Mississippi voted for their lone Democrat Carter in 1976 but not for his re-election and South Carolina also only voted for one Democrat (Carter in 1976).

    I stand by my comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *