PDA

View Full Version : Notes from the anti's 14A playbook


hoffmang
08-09-2008, 8:24 PM
All,

I wanted to share with everyone some reliable information I've picked up from some sources that need to remain nameless.

LCAV, Brady, and VPC are in Chicago (and suburbs) and San Francisco working very hard to have all the handgun bans repealed. The wise man's betting odds are that you will see Chicago remove their handgun ban while the Federal Court there stalls the case. Also, expect SF to force the Housing Authority to remove the lease restriction and then move to dismiss the Doe case based on that change.

The other side is confident that we can get incorporation so they are going to do everything they can to stall and duck incorporation with hope that an Obama presidency will add a 5th vote to the other side so that Heller could be severely limited.

I'll go on the record here saying that I expect both Chicago and SFHA to drop their handgun/firearm bans.

The only problem for the other side is that the overlooked one case and one bill here in California... I think everyone here knows the case, but I'd ask that we remain a bit mum on which bill :reddevil:

-Gene

mecam
08-09-2008, 8:33 PM
And I don't understand why some Gun Owners are still voting for Obama. :confused: I guess 2A is just not that important to them.

M. Sage
08-09-2008, 8:35 PM
Is there any way we can put pressure on Newsom, call him out publicly in some way? He's too full prideful to drop this if we put pressure on him, IMO. :43:

sorensen440
08-09-2008, 8:38 PM
Is there any way we can put pressure on Newsom, call him out publicly in some way? He's too full prideful to drop this if we put pressure on him, IMO. :43:

Thats something to think about
could have some negative effects though if we end up rallying the anti gun side

RRangel
08-09-2008, 8:39 PM
Very interesting, but not surprising. The question is do they really have the influence? Gavin and buddies couldn't resist from setting themselves up before. Are we to believe they've suddenly changed?

hoffmang
08-09-2008, 8:39 PM
I admit to brainstorming ways to pressure these folks to not give up.

If the antis actually had grass roots we could go tell them that they're being sold down the river....

-Gene

CSACANNONEER
08-09-2008, 8:44 PM
And I don't understand why some Gun Owners are still voting for Obama. :confused: I guess 2A is just not that important to them.


I don't understand why some Americans are still considering voting for Obama. I guess the fate of our country isn't that important to them.

secretasianman
08-10-2008, 12:03 AM
And I don't understand why some Gun Owners are still voting for Obama. :confused: I guess 2A is just not that important to them.
I hate to say this but we're a small percentage of gun owners who pay attention to pending legislation. The majority of California gun owners don't care enough because of the "I already have mine!" attitude. It baffles my mind when I hear gun owners voting for gun grabbing Dems because they don't like or trust Republicans. Geez... can you at least vote Libertarian then?

M. Sage
08-10-2008, 12:04 AM
Thats something to think about
could have some negative effects though if we end up rallying the anti gun side

Oh, I think we do want to rally them. This is a winning proposition if we can force them to stand their ground.

Otherwise, we're in a "fighting against guerillas" kind of situation. We're holding the cards on this one, IMO, and that means we want them to stand and fight, not retreat and wait for their turn. We have the momentum and need to use it.

Along the lines of what Gene said: If the antis were grassroots, I'd be on their forums calling them chicken**** and/or saying "so, you think you were wrong about the 2A now!?" Of course... I'd be pretending to be one of them. :p

CCWFacts
08-10-2008, 2:00 AM
http://www.squeakyporcupine.com/gallery/Ireland-2001/2/_0052t.jpg

I admit to brainstorming ways to pressure these folks to not give up.

Mayor Daley went very strongly on record that he's going to defend their law to his last breath.

I wouldn't be surprised though. I know that the DC council came close to passing a 90-day reg window, just for the purpose of destroying standing. But, for political reasons which I'm sure a lot of people now regret, they didn't do it. Now they realize and they might try to do it.

If they do succeed in pulling these bans and yanking standing, as you say, there's another case, but aside from that, there's still a radical fall-back strategy: loaded open carry. In Chicago, SF, DC, etc. There are also state-level bans in other places that are more under the radar. Finally, there are stringent gun bans in a bunch of places like Guam and Saipan that are US territories without state governments, and that will never back down from their gun bans, regardless of any amount of pressure from the LCAV and Brady Campaign. These places have guns for reasons totally outside of any influence from the Bradies.

Oh, I think we do want to rally them. This is a winning proposition if we can force them to stand their ground.

Otherwise, we're in a "fighting against guerrillas" kind of situation.

That's a good analogy. Guerrillas always want to avoid fighting pitched battles. We're in the position of being a regular army right now, and so we do want them to engage us in a pitched battle, and lose. Mayor Daley sure did talk about a pitched battle to the bitter end, yadda yadda yadda. Hope he's serious about it.

Centurion_D
08-10-2008, 7:42 AM
So what your saying Gene is so far so good and things are moving in the right direction? Let us hope so.:)

Paladin
08-10-2008, 8:36 AM
The other side is confident that we can get incorporation so they are going to do everything they can to stall and duck incorporation with hope that an Obama presidency will add a 5th vote to the other side so that Heller could be severely limited.This is why I've been saying for the past few months the most important thing pro-gun people in the PRK and the USA can do for the next few months if fight to get McCain in the White House and the Repubs to win a majority in the US Senate.

True, we may get incorporation regardless, but there are many "sons of Heller" that we need beyond that.

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 9:48 AM
Mayor Daley went very strongly on record that he's going to defend their law to his last breath.


There is newer news from Mayor Daley (http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1087669,CST-NWS-guns02.article). Here is the Chicago Tribune editorializing that the handgun ban (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0801edit1aug01,0,1174999.story) should be abandoned. Can you say political aircover?

Looks to me that the inside pool is being reflected on the outside too. What surprises me is the news that SFHA will be forced to back down, but San Francisco is the hometown of LCAV (http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/).

-Gene

1911_sfca
08-10-2008, 9:55 AM
As someone who fought very hard against Proposition H (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=24433), I wouldn't have thought I'd ever be on the other side. However, the prospect of losing incorporation may mean we have to get out there and encourage the City to fight to defend the public housing ban.

nicki
08-10-2008, 11:29 AM
Prop H has actually given us useful data, turns out most of the support came from the Castro district and the Tenderloin districts.

Most gun control advocates operate from emotion, not reason, which basically means the brady bunch and others will have a hard time convincing them to change course to avoid jumping off the cliff.

Appeals to Gavin Newsom can come from outside of San Francisco, what I will write will appeal to his ego and will make his staffers feel good about their man.

My suggestion is to say you are either Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, Bisexual or you can say that you are a family member or friend of someone who it.

You can say you are a PFLAG(Parent, friends of Lesbians and Gays) supporter.

I want to make it clear that these are not my personal values at all, but hopefully many calls like this will have him continue his course.

First: We must appeal to his ego, how he is a tendsetter, so we tie in how brave he was with Gay Marriage.

Second: We focus that he is his own man who stands up to the Christian Right.

Third: We say that the NRA already has other cases lined up to incorporate gun laws regardless of what he does.

Forth: We need ocus that having a gun free society is paramount to reducing violence and that to just roll over without a fight is beneath him.

Fifth: Right now he is a leader and he represents San Francisco. If we give up without a fight, the city will be viewed as wimp wristed losers.

If San Fran fights, we will still have our self respect.

Sixth: The Gay community didn't run like a dog with its tail between its legs after losing in the SCOTUS in 1986 on "Sodomy Laws". They regrouped, learned from the "failures" and came back stronger than ever.

Seveth: The "Heller case" is not a lose, it ruled that "gun safety laws" are constitutional, gun ownership is not a "right".

Eight: If he appeases the Gun Nuts on this issue, what other gun issues is he going to cave in on. The Gun Nuts are bullies, you have to stand up to them, even if you do get a boody nose, because if you don't, they will become emboldied and come back for even more.

Nine: Is he going to allow paranoid gun nuts to openly walk around with mail order semi auto assault machinegun guns, how about concealed weapons, how about "streetsweepers", how about the children.

Ten: Mayor Mascone and Harvey Milk were murdered by a handgun, in 1982 Mayor Feinstein tried to make San Fran a bastion of sanity by banning handguns, we owe it to them to continue to keep on fighting, to cave in now is to cave in to the Christian Right who would love nothing more than to round us up, put us in camps and gas us just like Hitler did to the Jews.

Many of you won't be able to stomach making such a call, but for those of you who do, please realize that the amount of people calling his office on this issue probably is not that high.

If he has a overwhelming number of people telling him to fight on, he will.
He has no issue with spending taxpayer's money.

Gavin Newsom is an opportunist and he has no issue screwing his "friends".
This is a guy who had an affair with his campaign manager's wife:eek:

Gavin would screw the "Brady Bunch" if it helped him politically. He is not going to help them at his personal expense.

nicki
08-10-2008, 11:36 AM
Mayor Gavin Newsom

City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 554-6141
Fax: (415) 554-6160
Email: gavin.newsom@sfgov.org

VegasND
08-10-2008, 11:43 AM
nicki: Next time I'm in the area I've got to look you up and buy you a drink! One of the cleverest and sneakiest things I've read in a long time. Excellent:cheers2:

CCWFacts
08-10-2008, 11:48 AM
There is newer news from Mayor Daley (http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1087669,CST-NWS-guns02.article). Here is the Chicago Tribune editorializing that the handgun ban (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0801edit1aug01,0,1174999.story) should be abandoned. Can you say political aircover?

Yeah. :mad: Clearly, they start running articles like that after the decision has been made. They will lift their ban, demolishing the standing for the suit there.

What surprises me is the news that SFHA will be forced to back down, but San Francisco is the hometown of LCAV (http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/).

But surely there are a bunch of other locations that are more off the radar, and where bans are even more entrenched?

And if we can't find a good place to fight "keep" issues, then we can move on to "bear". It's one thing for Mayor Daley to reconcile himself with Chicagoans keeping guns in their houses, it's another thing entirely for him to warm up to CCW or open carry in Chicago.

Mssr. Eleganté
08-10-2008, 11:51 AM
How about we "leak" some "insider information" to Matier and Ross at the Chronicle.

We could tell them the Gavin Newsom is so terrified of the NRA that he is going to give in to all of their demands. :43:

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 12:07 PM
But surely there are a bunch of other locations that are more off the radar, and where bans are even more entrenched?

And if we can't find a good place to fight "keep" issues, then we can move on to "bear". It's one thing for Mayor Daley to reconcile himself with Chicagoans keeping guns in their houses, it's another thing entirely for him to warm up to CCW or open carry in Chicago.

It's funny. The reality is that there really aren't all that many broadly restrictive state actions on firearms because - well - even the antis knew that they were trenching close to a fundamental right even pre-Heller. The issue is that on staying to "keep" there just aren't that many fully clean challenges. There are lots of clean challenges post incorporation and some of the less clean aren't that unclean - call it 85% chance of success instead of 98%. That said though, having all the nastiest laws fold will certainly sway the court of public opinion. Five years from now people are going to remember that after Heller all sorts of laws just went away. That may help us more than winning in court in many ways.

However, I think you are quite correct. We can always fall back to "bear" next year if most of the easy keep questions are mooted. The only difference is at the margin where there are some Federal judges who can easily be convinced of "keep in the home" that will be harder to convince of "bear on the sidewalk." We all know what the law is, but we all want to start with keep and then come back around for bear based on the keep precedents.

-Gene

CCWFacts
08-10-2008, 12:20 PM
It's funny. The reality is that there really aren't all that many broadly restrictive state actions on firearms because - well - even the antis knew that they were trenching close to a fundamental right even pre-Heller. The issue is that on staying to "keep" there just aren't that many fully clean challenges.

Look to the islands. I'm sure Hawaii has some goofy ordinances, probably including bans on guns in public housing etc. Also, I realize they aren't states, but Saipan, Guam and a bunch of minor islands are all in the 9th circuit, and they all have more or less sweeping gun bans. And these island gun bans are beyond the influence of the LCAV. Island politics are their own world.

"Assault pistols" defined by several characteristics, essentially large semi auto pistols of cosmetic paramilitary appearance, usually accepting detachable magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity, are banned, except those registered before July 1992 (grand fathered, may not be transferred). These include semi auto versions of UZI, Tech-9, etc., and certain large target pistols.

These are "handguns" and they are banned absolutely. Does this help?

However, I think you are quite correct. We can always fall back to "bear" next year if most of the easy keep questions are mooted. The only difference is at the margin where there are some Federal judges who can easily be convinced of "keep in the home" that will be harder to convince of "bear on the sidewalk."

It's a good point.

We all know what the law is, but we all want to start with keep and then come back around for bear based on the keep precedents.

Right that would be the ideal order. Bite off small bites rather than trying one big bite.

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 12:28 PM
I do agree that Hawaii is the most interesting back up strategy and I can tell you that The Right People (TM) look forward to hearings there... It's just a bit more expensive :D

-Gene

CCWFacts
08-10-2008, 1:09 PM
I do agree that Hawaii is the most interesting back up strategy and I can tell you that The Right People (TM) look forward to hearings there... It's just a bit more expensive :D

Well, once it's filed, it's the 9th circuit, so it becomes expensive for them, not for us mainlanders.

And what about the various islands that are not states, like Guam, Saipan, PR, and many others? These islands have sweeping gun restrictions / bans. They have a variety of legal statuses. Saipan is part of the US commonwealth. Guam is a territory. Some of the others have other peculiar statuses.

nicki
08-10-2008, 2:09 PM
Perhaps what we may want to consider is a lawsuit in a area that is friendly to us and won't drop a lawsuit.

What comes to my mind is Oregon and there CCW system.

They have created 3 classes of applicants for ccw permits.

Residents which are shall issue, non residents who reside in border states which are may issue, and of course non residents from other states who are no issue.

Although not as clean as an outright ban, it may be a class action case that could incorporate both 2nd and 14 th amendment issues.

A gun friendly sheriff and DA who would willingly throw a case could do it.

The trick would be to make sure we cover every demographic in our applicant base so that it would force the highest scrutiny possible.

A "special field trip" could be arranged so that the clients could step into Oregon to have "their rights violated" and gain standing. After that, a law team could just take over and represent the plantiffs.

The benefit is we could get the "bear" portion taken care of as well as "keep" and if done right, set a court standard of how far they could go in restricting concealed carry.

Oregon does allow open carry, except for a few cities such as portland.

In fact, it might be beneficial just to schedule people on a specific day in Portland for the ccw permit process, then when they show up and are denied, they have standing.

Just one back up plan.

In the mean time, let's give Newsome some calls encouraging him to fight.

Nicki

sharpie613
08-10-2008, 3:55 PM
Would it be presumptive to suggest that this thread be deleted, right now?

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 4:09 PM
Would it be presumptive to suggest that this thread be deleted, right now?

Nope. Consider this thread a bit of a thorn in their side :chris:

Nicki: CCW isn't the best place to shoot for incorporation.

-Gene

nicki
08-10-2008, 4:19 PM
Let the anti's sweat it out by worrying about all the things we might do.

I am sure we are not the only ones in the country who are considering action.

Besides, it is fun to watch them panic, because many gun owners felt defeated, especially here in California.

The more avenues of attack they fear, the stronger we will actually get.

If Chicago actually caves in without a fight, we may not have a court case, but the number of people who will get on board our team will dramatically increase.

It is not if we will get incorporation, but when.

All we need to do is stay on the offense and never let up because our opponents will turn on us if we let up.

This is like a chess game, only this time we are on offense and we need to get a few more moves ahead of our opponents.

Nicki

Yankee Clipper
08-10-2008, 4:35 PM
I admit to brainstorming ways to pressure these folks to not give up.

If the antis actually had grass roots we could go tell them that they're being sold down the river....

-Gene

Well Gene; "politics does make strange bed fellows" now doesn't it?

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 4:39 PM
Well Gene; "politics does make strange bed fellows" now doesn't it?

Far, far too true!

-Gene

navyinrwanda
08-10-2008, 5:59 PM
I can imagine many reasons why LCAV, Brady, and VPC et al would prefer to scuttle the Chicago and San Francisco litigation -- both of those would be virtual slam-dunks for incorporation. Incorporation is still likely, but from their vantage point, other avenues probably seem less sure and likely to spend much more time working their way through the appeals process.

But I think it's a bit delusional for them to expect a SCOTUS change in a first Obama administration that would reverse or severely limit the Heller decision. Kennedy and Scalia are 72 years old; both are in good health and unlikely to retire anytime soon. Thomas, Alito and Roberts are all 60 or under (Thomas' 60th birthday was June 23, 2008).

The most likely near-term retirement is Stevens, who's 88. I suppose Obama could appoint someone "worse" -- but given that Stevens authored the tortuous Heller dissent, I suspect the only thing worse about his replacement would be his (or her) youth.

FYI -- Ginsburg is 75, Bryer is 70, and Souter is 69 (turning 70 on 9/17/2008).

A second Obama term could be more problematic... but I'd hope that Heller would have been incorporated long before then, and would have become well-established precedent.

Shotgun Man
08-10-2008, 6:20 PM
I can imagine many reasons why LCAV, Brady, and VPC et al would prefer to scuttle the Chicago and San Francisco litigation -- both of those would be virtual slam-dunks for incorporation. Incorporation is still likely, but from their vantage point, other avenues probably seem less sure and likely to spend much more time working their way through the appeals process.

But I think it's a bit delusional for them to expect a SCOTUS change in a first Obama administration that would reverse or severely limit the Heller decision. Kennedy and Scalia are 72 years old; both are in good health and unlikely to retire anytime soon. Thomas, Alito and Roberts are all 60 or under (Thomas' 60th birthday was June 23, 2008).

The most likely near-term retirement is Stevens, who's 88. I suppose Obama could appoint someone "worse" -- but given that Stevens authored the tortuous Heller dissent, I suspect the only thing worse about his replacement would be his (or her) youth.

FYI -- Ginsburg is 75, Bryer is 70, and Souter is 69 (turning 70 on 9/17/2008).

A second Obama term could be more problematic... but I'd hope that Heller would have been incorporated long before then, and would have become well-established precedent.

Nice post. I was wondering about the same thing myself.

Welcome to calguns.

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 6:47 PM
I agree that things aren't going to shift much Heller wise, but I think everyone can see that the only hope on the other side left is that one of the Heller majority has an untimely death while Obama is in his second term or somesuch. Think of it as a quite scary version of one heartbeat away if Obama wins...

Otherwise, the antis are basically screwed.

-Gene

Meplat
08-10-2008, 7:13 PM
Mayor Gavin Newsom

City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 554-6141
Fax: (415) 554-6160
Email: gavin.newsom@sfgov.org


You go girl!!

Solidmch
08-10-2008, 7:25 PM
I don't understand why some Americans are still considering voting for Obama. I guess the fate of our country isn't that important to them.

Can some of these Cal Gunners voting for Obama open another thread and fill me in on why you are voting for this guy? Please include why our gun rights wont be in jepardy.

dfletcher
08-10-2008, 7:27 PM
How about we "leak" some "insider information" to Matier and Ross at the Chronicle.

We could tell them the Gavin Newsom is so terrified of the NRA that he is going to give in to all of their demands. :43:

With the Cow Palace gun bill up for vote, Newsome will be out & about regardless of the outcome, to complain or to gloat. I suppose that would be the time to question him about the upcoming housing ban case.

Bukowski
08-10-2008, 9:12 PM
With the Cow Palace gun bill up for vote, Newsome will be out & about regardless of the outcome, to complain or to gloat. I suppose that would be the time to question him about the upcoming housing ban case.

With the Bologna family killings and Newsome blaming the NRA in his first press conference, rather than his "sanctuary city" policy, he may lay low for a bit.

trashman
08-10-2008, 9:20 PM
Great post, Gene. Proof again that the most important moving parts in politics are just like geology: pressure and time.

--Neill

navyinrwanda
08-11-2008, 3:31 AM
That issues of such import hang by a 5-4 thread -- a thread that could easily snap due to an unfortunate accident or illness -- is yet another reason why the upcoming elections are so consequential.

Much more is at stake than our recently "rediscovered" 2A rights.

The prospect of an Obama administration with a heavily Democratic House and a (potentially) filibuster-proof Senate keeps me awake at night.

The last time this occurred was the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter. If you're too young to remember those times, or have forgotten them, it'd be wise to read some history of the late 1970's before considering a vote for Obama -- or any other Democrat.

bulgron
08-11-2008, 6:49 AM
Wouldn't it be funny if SF and Chicago folded on their gun bans, only to have McCain win anyway?

I mean, Obama's presidency isn't exactly a done deal, is it? As I recall, it sure looked like Kerry was going to win in 2004, right up until the night of the election....

Theseus
08-11-2008, 8:43 AM
Well, I do believe that in any case where the antis are willing to back down we gain ground.

My head hurts from the thought of all our options, but I still think motivating a changing public opinion is vital to our cause. There are plenty of people in Cali that would jump at the chance to buy a gun IF they knew they could, and could afford one.

I think that, as mentioned elsewhere it would cost more, but could prove to be the quickest way to incite change.

CCWFacts
08-11-2008, 9:13 AM
I mean, Obama's presidency isn't exactly a done deal, is it? As I recall, it sure looked like Kerry was going to win in 2004, right up until the night of the election....

It sure isn't a done deal. In this country we talk a lot about tolerance etc, but in all our history, we've only elected one non-WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) as a president. One. That's a strong pattern and it's good enoghh to bet on. Somehow when they are alone in the voting booth, the voters vote for people who are the founding group of the US.

I'm not saying that's right, and I don't work that way (I would gladly vote for Condi!), but this is such a strong and consistent pattern, I don't think Obama winning is a done deal.

If the Dems really wanted to win they would pick a "blue dog" governor. One other strong pattern is that voters prefer governors over senators, because governor is an executive position. Again, Obama has never really had an executive position, and he wants to be the chief executive of a corporation with 3mil employees (the fed. gov)? Voters might tell pollsters that it's not important, but alone in the voting booth, it is. And McCain does have at least some military executive experience.

There's a big anti-Republican sentiment, and it's a great time to be a Democrat, and who do the Dems pick to lead them to victory? They pick an ultra-liberal non-WASP from Chicago, who we all know has spent 20 years going to a crazy black nationalist church, who has no executive experience. Voters might not talk about stuff like that, but they think about it and vote based on it.

His victory is not a done deal, not at all.

Satex
08-11-2008, 11:21 AM
I don't understand why some Americans are still considering voting for Obama. I guess the fate of our country isn't that important to them.

Because when a person votes, they don't vote on just one issue, they vote on many issues, each weighed differently.

bwiese
08-11-2008, 11:33 AM
Because when a person votes, they don't vote on just one issue, they vote on many issues, each weighed differently.

I vote the 2nd topmost.

hill billy
08-11-2008, 11:49 AM
Because when a person votes, they don't vote on just one issue, they vote on many issues, each weighed differently.

I guess they don't stop to consider that without certain issues the other issues won't matter. If Obama is elected and successful at passing a myriad of anti gun laws, which right will be next on the block? Do those same people stop to weigh that?

bulgron
08-11-2008, 12:51 PM
I guess they don't stop to consider that without certain issues the other issues won't matter. If Obama is elected and successful at passing a myriad of anti gun laws, which right will be next on the block? Do those same people stop to weigh that?

They want "free healthcare" and to give the shaft to "rich people" via higher taxes.

Compared to that, what's a few gun laws amongst friends?

hill billy
08-11-2008, 12:54 PM
Compared to that, what's a few gun laws amongst friends?

A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. What really amuses me is those who think they have their finger on the pulse of law and politics and really are missing just about everything.
Gene, thanks for posting this thread, it's good to see that a lot of people still have a positive outlook on the situation and are actively fighting. One day at a time folks.

1859sharps
08-11-2008, 9:25 PM
I vote the 2nd topmost.

If your anything like me, you find that a person who has a strong belief in the 2nd also lines up with many of your other "lesser" issues/beliefs. while never 100%, close enough so that when other issues come up they will either vote what you would want anyway...or something you can live with.

I find that anti 2nd people don't just differ from me on the gun issues, we differ and disagree on many issues.

again non of this is 100%, but I find it amazing how often it works out.

So, ya one of the first things I want to know about someone I might be voting for is how they stand on the 2nd.

Blue
08-11-2008, 9:29 PM
And I don't understand why some Gun Owners are still voting for Obama. :confused: I guess 2A is just not that important to them.

I don't know why anybody is voting for him :confused:

otteray
08-12-2008, 4:30 AM
And I don't understand why some Gun Owners are still voting for Obama. :confused: I guess 2A is just not that important to them.

He is promising cash prizes for all!
They still believe that He will not go after their "hunting rifles."
That He will only go after someone else's evil guns in Chicago; but not in Cheyenne.

Liberty1
08-12-2008, 5:17 AM
And if we can't find a good place to fight "keep" issues, then we can move on to "bear".

Sue Texas in the 5th Cir. over their open carry ban.

bulgron
08-12-2008, 7:47 AM
Sue Texas in the 5th Cir. over their open carry ban.

No, they're already thinking about doing away with that ban anyway. They'll just fold, and probably be pretty happy doing it too.

We're going to have to sue California over our complete ban on carrying of any kind (in the more populated places around the state).

Or Hawaii for that matter.

hoffmang
08-12-2008, 8:15 PM
The reporter is not actually getting this right, but read between the lines and see what I was saying:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1530882%7ENRA_may_have_missed_target.html

-Gene

Shotgun Man
08-12-2008, 8:44 PM
The reporter is not actually getting this right, but read between the lines and see what I was saying:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1530882%7ENRA_may_have_missed_target.html

-Gene

FYI, the link is not working for me.

ETA: I take it back. Now it is working.

M. Sage
08-12-2008, 8:50 PM
I remember reading that at work and noticing that the author had missed the point.

I really wish it would have been more like "SF close to caving to NRA pressure" as a headline...

The Examiner used to be a better paper... what happened to them? There was a time when they were the only non-"progressive"-biased paper on Frisco. Now they're about as bad as the Chronicle (though nowhere near as bad as the Guardian.. but then, nothing is).