McCann: Setting the Record Straight on Gun Resolution

John McCann John McCann 14 Comments

Share

Michael Schwartz wrote an opinion as the employee of the Gun Owners of San Diego on SD Rostra that is riddled with lies and personal attacks on myself.  Therefore, I need to set the record straight, because he is spending his organization’s money, time, and resources attacking me with a false story and an untrue narrative.

In addition, this is a warning to all elected officials, candidates and anyone who would like to get involved in politics to be aware that Michael Schwartz requires you to agree with him 100 percent all the time or he goes into his bully tactics. After positively assisting Schwartz per his requests in the past, in good faith I proactively tried to work with him on the potential nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution in Chula Vista. The final nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution from the City Council of Chula Vista supported no new gun restrictions in California. But as I found out after the vote, it did not exactly align with Schwartz’s gun beliefs.

So, if you deviate one iota, do not exactly vote his way, have any independent thoughts or beliefs yourself, Schwartz will use the resources of the San Diego Guns Owners to slander you, publicly defame you and make up stories to assassinate your character.

Below is a text from Michael Schwartz to me the morning after the vote on behalf of his organization calling me a douche bag. This unprofessionalism and abusive comments toward me and others are just the tip of the iceberg. In my thirty years of public service and almost two decades of being an elected official, I have never met a paid special interest lobbyist who was so unprofessional, disrespectful and dishonest.

I support the right of self-defense, I support the 2nd Amendment and I have been an ally to this organization on issues in the past. I am a rational thinker and I am not in lock step with any organization. I know very few individuals who are sheep and agree 100 percent with most organizations.

The final nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution from the City Council of Chula Vista I voted for did not support any new gun ownership restrictions in California. It supported comprehensive background checks. It supported red flag laws with due process. It supported the availability and funding of mental health services. The gun safety resolution the Chula Vista City Council passed was only a statement. (See the attached resolution.)

I want to thank all the outpouring of phone calls and emails supporting me. People who agreed and disagreed with my vote do not agree with Michael Schwartz’s attacks and wonder how a nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution that does not support any new gun ownership restrictions in California has created this much hate from Schwartz. Their main comment is, “Really? Schwartz continues to alienate people.”

One Republican Central Committee member who called me about the resolution called it a “Do Nothing Resolution” and wondered why Schwartz was acting so ballistic about it. Another Central Committee member called to tell me that this was Schwartz’s MO. Another believes he is using his position for a separate political agenda than the San Diego Gun Owners.

The first major lie that Schwartz states in his Rostra post is that on August 12 I approached him with the nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution at the Central Committee, that I gave him a copy and he read the resolution.  Completely false. On August 12 the gun safety resolution was not completed and not available yet. If the resolution was not available yet, how could I give him a copy and have him read it? The resolution was not available that day.

A prior gun safety resolution approximately two year ago was brought to the former City Council by Councilman Mike Diaz, a hardcore gun owner, and Pat Aguilar, a progressive. It did not support any new gun ownership restrictions in California. Schwartz did not show up to that meeting and he did not oppose the resolution. I voted for the resolution with Mike Diaz and Pat Aguilar. The two other members voted against the resolution, because they thought it did not include gun restrictions.

The new push, then, was a new statement for a stricter gun safety resolution by the Mayor in response to the recent mass shootings. The Mayor at the prior Council meeting had a long list of restrictions that I did not entirely support.

Here is the truth about our interaction on August 12 at the Central Committee meeting. Proactively and in good faith, I approached Schwartz letting him know that a gun safety resolution was coming and that it may oppose the 2nd Amendment. I said the resolution was not out yet, but I had talked to the City Attorney about my concerns and I was hoping the resolution would be without any new gun ownership restrictions in California. Schwartz made a commitment to me that he would follow up with me in the morning to talk about it. I never received a follow up from him the next morning.

I never committed to Schwartz on which way I would vote on the nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution. After being in elected office for almost two decades, I consistently do not commit and do not tell people how I am going to vote on items prior to Council meetings and especially not to paid special interest lobbyists. Plus, there was no resolution available to read yet and it is ludicrous to think I would make a commitment without reading an item. That is not the way I work. I work to be fully informed prior to making a decision and try to listen to both sides.

If the resolution was palatable like the prior one a couple years ago at the City or if it would impose any new gun ownership restrictions in California it would point me in different directions.  So, again I made no commitment to vote against the resolution, because there was not a resolution available yet.

The following day, the resolution was posted and I reviewed it. I read the resolution and it had no new gun ownership restrictions in California. I was still waiting for Michael Schwartz to contact me.

In the afternoon, I then e-mailed Schwartz for him to review and hoped he would contact me like he had committed.

I then did my homework with law enforcement. I talked with an ATF officer who is an expert in guns and a local police captain, both concurred that the resolution did not support any additional gun restrictions in California. I still did not have any response from Schwartz, so I called his cell phone with no answer.

I then finished up a work meeting and went to the City Council meeting. I never received a phone call or e-mail from Schwartz. Now, Schwartz shows a screenshot of him calling me after 3:30 p.m., which may be the case, but I did not have any calls logged from him on my phone. In addition, he again lied and stated that he left me a voicemail. He could not leave me a voicemail, because my voicemail was full.

I went to the City Council meeting. Schwartz was nowhere to be found. He did not have anyone come speak on the resolution. Therefore, I believed the San Diego County Gun Owners association was not opposed to this nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution like the prior gun safety resolution we voted on a couple years ago.

I have had disagreements in the past with allies and foes, you then have civil discussions and look for opportunities where you can work together. When I spoke with Michael on the phone the next morning following the vote, he admitted to me that I have to agree with him 100% of the time or he will attack me.

During the phone call Michael was livid and very abuse towards me. The douche bag text was tame to the many abusive insults he yelled at me. I tried to calm him down and asked him to have civil conversation with me multiple times about the nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution. He just continued his abusive rants toward me and screamed about many other political issues that had nothing to do with gun ownership.

If this issue was so important to Schwartz and the San Diego Gun Owners, then why did he fail to communicate with me and fail these basic lobbying steps? Here are some facts where Schwartz failed the organization that he is paid to represent. Schwartz did not attend the City Council meeting for the vote on the nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution. Schwartz did not send someone to speak at the City Council meeting on the nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution. Schwartz failed to follow up with me on Tuesday morning after committing to call me when I talked with him on Monday night. On Tuesday afternoon, he never responded to my e-mail after the posting of the gun resolution. Schwartz never answered my phone call when I called him on Tuesday afternoon. I did more than my part in trying to communicate with Schwartz and the San Diego Gun Owners.

Having an open dialog with the Gun Owners Association may not have changed my vote, but at least I would have known where they stood. Their argument may have helped me shape a different opinion, but I am an independent thinker.

I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect honesty and professionalism.

Share

Comments 14

  1. John McCann, I think you’re deflecting.

    Let me get this straight.

    Let’s say you voted for a resolution stipulating homosexuals should not be treated as equals. Are we to understand you expect homosexuals to disregard your vote because it was non-binding?

    Let me make sure I have this straight.

    Let’s say you (John McCann) voted for a resolution making Nazi’s the favored political philosophy of Chula Vista. Are we to stand down because your vote was non-binding?

    Call me stupid but your vote on the resolution is an expression of you and your values. As a Christian and a Republican the inconsistency of your ideas is embarrassing.

  2. Mr. McCann, THE REASON I would’ve voted no:

    You won by two votes and gun owners are single-issue voters. Knowing that as a politician, combining it with your claim, the resolution meant nothing your vote should’ve been obvious! You should’ve stated it’s a meaningless vote and voted no… period, end of story and everyone moves on.

    The many layers of a resolution like this is meant to put Republicans in a box. It’s typical of what’s happening in many towns every time there’s a mental nutjob who attacks and kills people. Leftists take advantage of it to put out resolutions like this. You chose to walk a tightrope and PLAY POLITICS and it failed.

    The fact you’re now in a mini crisis shows you made something you claim to be meaningless, meaningful among your Republican base – Mr. McCann, you need every vote you can get and in trying to be cute here you’ve likely cost yourself re-election if you choose to run.

    Congrats Mr. McCann for putting your two-vote win this past cycle in jeopardy because you chose to play politics.

  3. Yeah John sorry but your first paragraph proves you’re full of shit.

    You say if michael schwartz doesnt agree with you 100% of the time then he goes into bully mode and bully tactics.

    That is inherently and unequivocally false. I am a very open Democratic Socialist. I have ran for office. I have disagreed with Schwartz on many issues and he has never once gone into “bully mode” with me.

    Let’s review the facts from what we know: fact, you contacted Schwartz to get him to lobby against the bill. Fact, schwartz did that successfully. Fact, you then voted in support of a bill that you contacted him to lobby against.

    Now I see you are deflecting and refusing to take ownership for the vote you made and are instead attacking Schwartz, a private citizen who has supported every run you have ever made. I predict you want to run for a higher office and figured it would be better for you to vote for it and try to make up for it with Republicans vs pissing off Dems.

    What I get out of all of this is that you lack what I call, political courage. The most important quality of an elected official is obviously deficient in you. You can explain your vote, but do not attack anyone for the decision to do it except for yourself. You voted against the 2nd A. Own it and have the gaul to admit it.

  4. If it’s just a non-binding resolution, why vote for it at all? Why vote for ANY “resolution” at all? This is how y’all get into trouble; voting on things which have NOTHING to do with your jurisdiction and the powers delegated to you.

    John, you got caught this time. Just own up and say your a gun grabber so we can all move on.

  5. if you support the Second Amendment (like all Republicans should) then there is no reason to worry about disagreeing with Michael Schwartz. Your vote went against everything our party stands for. There might be some areas where some Republicans disagree with each other but the support of the 2A is not one of them. This was a weak vote and I am EXTREMELY disappointed in your vote. There is NO excuse.

  6. John, that entire reply is a crock. You asked all of us 2A folks to help you when you barely won an election and we did. We walked, called and did everything we could as Republicans to elect you. You just screwed all of us. You showed your true thoughts on an issue that is a civil right we would all die for. Schwartz is very strong on 2A, that is what he is paid to do.

    As a Founding Board member of SDCGO, and a friend of Schwartz, I have seen him in action 100s of times and he is about as professional as anyone I would want to deal with.

    As Eric Andersen said, you’re deflecting! Are you planning to vote on symbolic resolution to be pro-abortion next? What is the end of this “Symbolic” voting for you?

    You, McCann, have lost all credibility and you might as well not attend central committee anymore, because you’re not one of us when you vote against us. We have enough to fight socialist nut bags and now we have to fight one we thought was our own.

    You’re done. Resign!!

  7. There’s so much to unpack, here, but a huge takeaway from McCann’s article is ~25 paragraphs of whining that if Michael Schwartz doesn’t contact him by phone or email multiple times to tell him how to vote, then we should be understanding when McCann votes in favor of the elimination of the core of our Constitutionally-protected natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    McCann repeats ad nauseam that it is a “symbolic, nonbinding resolution,” believing that this somehow makes it more palatable to supporters of the US Constitution. Quite the contrary; this symbolic gesture reveals that even when it is not a jurisdictional matter, McCann will go out of his way to formally mischaracterize semiautomatic sporting rifles as weapons of war, and urge new legislation banning them.

    McCann also outright lies, again – proving his detractors correct in their accusations of his untruthful nature – when he offers the limp excuse that the resolution calls for no new restrictions. The truth is exactly the opposite of McCann’s claim: Resolution item 1 plainly, simply and succinctly calls for the elimination of the most popular firearm in the US, and simultaneously calls for a magazine ban identical to the one that was just declared *unconstitutional* by a federal judge in CA just 3 months ago. Semiauto sporting rifles, being the single most popular type of firearm sold in the US, are the very definition of “in common use,” (see Heller), thus my assertion that McCann’s vote is an attack on the absolute, 100% center of the 2nd Amendment, not a fringe disagreement with the principles of Schwartz, the SDCGO, conservatives, Constitutionalists, or Republicans.

    McCann seems to be very good at digging his own holes, deeper. This is ultimately for the good – he has revealed himself on a very public stage to be an enemy of Constitutional principles, and a person of weak moral character who votes whichever way the wind blows.

  8. “if you support the Second Amendment (like all Republicans should)”

    Actually, ALL AMERICANS should. We have survived and thrived for 240+ years because we live by our Constitution even when we personally don’t agree with where that leads us.

    The above being said, no Constitutional right is absolute. Freedom of Speech does not allow someone to incite violence or “yell fire in a crowded theater.” Freedom of the Press is still limited by slander and libel laws. Even the right to vote can be taken away if one commits a felony. Likewise, the Second Amendment is also not absolute. I am sure everyone here (even Michael) can agree that no one has the right to carry an RPG launcher and most of us agree that banning fully automatic weapons is not a violation of the Constitution. So the question is not whether or not there can be restrictions on a Constitutional freedom. There can be. The question is where to draw the line. Let the discussion continue but don’t vilify those who fall on the other side of the line.

  9. John, I went to the link that included the resolution and read it thoroughly. Can you please point me to the part that you contend requires any level of “due process” with regard to “Red Flag” gun confiscation? I must have missed it. Like most things in life, the devil is in the details. Were you to bother to take a look at the Constitution, the enumerated powers of the Federal Government are well documented. And any other powers are left to the several states. California already has some of the most restrictive requirements to legally purchase firearms. They include background checks and prohibiting the sale and ownership of many “military style” firearms. Why do residents of Chula Vista require federal legislation to do what’s already part of CA state law?

  10. It is hard to find a single sentence in this post, John, that doesn’t contain at least one lie. Not a difference of perspective or a gray area, but an actual untruth.

    But just two things…
    1) Does anyone actually believe that after John showed me the first draft of the gun ban resolution Monday night at the Republican Central Committee meeting, that I had to think about it and get back to John to let him know how I felt?

    2) “Douchebag” is one word, John.

  11. “nonbinding symbolic gun safety resolution…”? I move that politicians be forbidden from voting on “…nonbinding symbolic…” anything. Do your job and stop wasting time, energy and oxygen on crap you weren’t elected to do. Geez….

  12. As a political junky and gun owner I am intrigued by the posts where San Diego Gun Owners attack Mr. McCann for his vote on gun safety and his response to their post.

    Let’s start with a civics lesson. The City of Chula Vista did not pass any laws outlawing guns. If they did have the power, the resolution still coincides with current state law. So the resolution doesn’t “grab your guns.”

    Mr. McCann does not shy away from his vote. He even posts the resolution he voted for, so everyone, can read it. It doesn’t ban my civilian AR-15 rifle or specifically call out any other non-military weapons.

    Mr. Swartz attacked Mr. McCann on Rostra. Mr. McCann writes a response and points out Mr. Swartz’s juvenile and immature behavior.

    So let’s ferret out the truth. Mr. Swartz, please answer the following questions.

    Do you get paid or receive a salary from the San Diego Gun Owners.?

    Did you call or text Mr. McCann a douchebag?

    If you did, do you think this a mature way of dealing with people?

    Did you attend the Chula Vista City Council meeting and speak on the resolution Mr. McCann voted?

    Do you have a Board member that’s house and business was raided by the FBI and ATF?

    I am an NRA member and will not join the San Diego Gun Owners, because Mr. Swartz’s erratic behavior and corrupt Board members under federal firearms investigation.

    https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/FBI-Search-Warrants-ATF-Jamul-Home-Jeweler-Leo-Hamel-San-Diego-505783061.html

    Bill

  13. Bill,

    Are you a member of the NRA, which the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco unanimously voted to designate a “terrorist organization”?

    I am, and in my opinion those five Supervisors who voted for that non-binding resolution are a bunch of douchebags.

Leave a Reply

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