PDA

View Full Version : Gun owners bill of rights so to speak.


nicki
08-11-2008, 2:57 PM
We often hear from our opponents about how they are for reasonable gun control. Of course they support bans and hide their real agendas.

What I thought of is maybe we could come up with a list of what we consider reasonable firearms regulations here in California.

Our opponents are screaming he sky is falling and are working to try to limit our ablity to have slam dunk test cases. Hopefully Gavin will be arrogant:43:

We need to redefine the political center on our terms.

What I would like everyone to consider is that there is alot of public misinformation out there thanks to our friends in the Brady Bunch.

The lies the brady bunch has put out their can be used against them.

Many people believe you can buy machineguns, bazookas, anti aircraft guns and other items mail order or over the internet. There education on what guns can do is whatever Hollywood shows them.

Combine what people see in the movies with what they hear on the news every night, it is amazing we still have anything that we can own legally left.

Please consider that this is California, so things like Vermont carry won't fly here in California.

The values I sugges you should consider using as a base to start from would be to recognize the need for a balance between the individual rights versus legitimate and real public safety concerns.

The court standard of course should be 'strict scrutiny".

For the most part, Joe Public has no idea what the difference is between "strict scrutiny and rational basis".

Right now the traditional base of firearms owners in the state is shrinking, so we have to expand our base and that means public outreach to many who have no dealings with the firearms culture.

I believe that we can get 80 percent of what we want here in California if we play smart.

We can always come back for desert to grab bites of the last 20 percent:43:


Nicki

Raystonn
08-11-2008, 3:05 PM
The values I sugges you should consider using as a base to start from would be to recognize the need for a balance between the individual rights versus legitimate and real public safety concerns.I fail to see any need for firearms-related laws in the name of "real public safety concerns". Tools don't kill people. People misusing tools kill people. Guns are just tools. The same can be said for machine guns, bazookas, and anti-aircraft guns. In the hands of a law-abiding citizen, none of these items are dangerous. In the hands of a criminal, all of these items, and many more mundane objects, are dangerous. Criminal negligence is already a crime. There is no need to specifically ban anti-aircraft guns to protect against negligence. Stop attacking our tools and go after those who misuse them. I'm tired of emotional pleas in the name of "the children" being used to strip us of our rights.

-Raystonn

Guruwes
08-11-2008, 3:46 PM
In the words from Charlton Heston
"Guns don't kill people... Apes w/ guns kill people"

dustoff31
08-11-2008, 3:51 PM
Many people believe you can buy machineguns, bazookas, anti aircraft guns and other items mail order or over the internet. There education on what guns can do is whatever Hollywood shows them.



Just to reinforce Raystonn's point, there are many machineguns, bazookas, and anti-aircraft guns that are classed as C&R's. In most places, one with a C&R can buy them mail order or over the internet. When is the last time anyone heard of one being used unlawfully?

Inanimate objects do only what people make them do.

nicki
08-11-2008, 3:53 PM
No one is attacking the tools, of course criminals misuse the guns and they violate the laws.

Most people seek safety so what we have to do is come from the angle of balancing freedom with real safety.

Our opponents use fear to attack our gun rights, that is a gut emotion.

If we counter with logical arguements, we lose because that is how humans are wired.

The issue is we say we are for effective laws, ones that actually work, ones that recognize people's rights with legitimate public safety.

The studies already exist to show that our positions are reasonable and would lead to a balance of private rights with public safety.

You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to slander for instance.

Most people do not believe rights are absolute, but that there must be a balance.

I have talked with many people who are liberals and if I can talk to them on the gun issue rationally, I can usually get them to move to supporting shall issue, repeal of AW bans, etc etc,.

California is hostile to firearms owners and I hope that maybe we can hash out a guide for the board, especially in areas where being a gun owner is politically incorrect.

Nicki

Librarian
08-11-2008, 4:25 PM
Most people seek safety so what we have to do is come from the angle of balancing freedom with real safety.
...
The issue is we say we are for effective laws, ones that actually work, ones that recognize people's rights with legitimate public safety.

I think what needs to happen is enforcing the existing law (sound familiar?) regarding sentencing enhancements for using guns in violent crimes.

For murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault - and essentially no other crimes - 12022. (a) (1) Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d), any
person who is armed with a firearm in the commission of a felony or
attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive
term of imprisonment in the state prison for one year, unless the
arming is an element of that offense. This additional term shall
apply to any person who is a principal in the commission of a felony
or attempted felony if one or more of the principals is armed with a
firearm, whether or not the person is personally armed with a
firearm.
...

12022.2. (a) Any person who, while armed with a firearm in the
commission or attempted commission of any felony, has in his or her
immediate possession ammunition for the firearm designed primarily to
penetrate metal or armor, shall upon conviction of that felony or
attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment
prescribed for the felony or attempted felony, be punished by an
additional term of 3, 4, or 10 years. The court shall order the
middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation or
mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its enhancement
choice on the record at the time of the sentence.

Move all the enhancements to the 3/4/10 years; clearly 1 isn't enough. Cut down the number of crimes the enhancement applies to. It's already specified that they be consecutive with the sentence for the main crime. And make it extremely difficult (but not impossible) to plea-bargain that enhancement away.

Keep 'felon in possession' restrictions. Figure out for whom restoration of firearms (and other rights) makes sense, and keep everybody else in jail or on closely supervised probation. Ex-felons in the right group stay clean for, say, 5 years, give them back their rights.

I don't think we'll ever get 'Vermont carry' here. So, make CCW shall-issue, and build examination ranges and issuing windows onto every DMV office. Make concealed carry without your CCW an infraction, like a fixit ticket. Make carry without having the CCW a fine, like 10% of the retail value of the gun on the first offense, seizure of the gun on any subsequent offense.

And then punish misuse for everything else.

Raystonn
08-11-2008, 5:20 PM
Most people seek safety so what we have to do is come from the angle of balancing freedom with real safety.I'm not willing to give up any of my rights so you may feel safer. I'm sure you'd feel safer if I didn't scream in your face, too. I'm sure you'd feel safer if I wasn't allowed to publicly voice certain opinions deemed controversial, too. If you are willing to give away your rights in the name of public safety, where will it stop? Besides, you may freely choose to give away that right by not exercising it. But asking everyone to give away individual rights to grant a societal want is immoral. Rights always trump wants.

Our opponents use fear to attack our gun rights, that is a gut emotion.

If we counter with logical arguements, we lose because that is how humans are wired.

I have talked with many people who are liberals and if I can talk to them on the gun issue rationally, I can usually get them to move to supporting shall issue, repeal of AW bans, etc etc,.Make up your mind. You are attacking your own arguments here. Do you like to play both black and white when you play chess?

The issue is we say we are for effective laws, ones that actually work, ones that recognize people's rights with legitimate public safety.Laws are not needed to recognize individual rights. We have individual rights regardless of the law. The second amendment is not a grant of a right. It is a recognition of our existing right.

California is hostile to firearms owners and I hope that maybe we can hash out a guide for the board, especially in areas where being a gun owner is politically incorrect.What kind of 'guide' are you trying to build here? What is the goal of such a guide?

-Raystonn

Librarian
08-11-2008, 6:35 PM
What kind of 'guide' are you trying to build here? What is the goal of such a guide?

I think I'd summarize it as "Given that laws limiting ownership and use of firearms are not going to go away in the foreseeable future, what laws could you live with?"

"None" is a valid, if unlikely to occur, answer.

Raystonn
08-11-2008, 6:56 PM
So the question is "What laws could I live with?" I assume you mean without complaining about them. In that case, none. Any law that infringes on my individual rights will, at the very least, be the target of complaints. Best efforts will also be made to repeal such laws.

Also, I have issues with your given: "Given that laws limiting ownership and use of firearms are not going to go away in the foreseeable future..." I don't agree with your predictions. I'd also like to state that if you give in to such a premise in the first place, then you are in essence the cause of it. The logic to it is rather circular.

-Raystonn

Librarian
08-11-2008, 7:04 PM
So the question is "What laws could I live with?" I assume you mean without complaining about them. In that case, none. Any law that infringes on my individual rights will, at the very least, be the target of complaints. Best efforts will also be made to repeal such laws.

Also, I have issues with your given: "Given that laws limiting ownership and use of firearms are not going to go away in the foreseeable future..." I don't agree with your predictions. I'd also like to state that if you give in to such a premise in the first place, then you are in essence the cause of it. The logic to it is rather circular.

-Raystonn
I reason from evidence:

the laws exist
our legislators lean with the wind
out citizenry, who elect the legislators, is uninformed and because of that are fearful where fear is not warranted
our so-called "fourth estate" is populated by those who see fear of guns as an issue of publicity, not truth

I don't see any of those changing soon. If you see movement in a positive direction on any of those, I would appreciate an exposition of the good news.

Mikeb
08-11-2008, 7:17 PM
So are you proposing a policy statement, constutional amendment? Things are so polarized right now I don't think it would be well recieved or effective. In my opinion the anti's are so far from reality they think they can create laws requireing technology that dose not exist. I'm not sure how you reason with someone like that.
We already have a constitution that declares the US Constitution is the law of the land. I don't even understand why incoporation is an issue. If we could roll back CA law to mirror US law it would give me most of what I want. I think what we really need is good candidates for public office.
$0.02
Mike

Mikeb
08-13-2008, 4:48 PM
I think what we really need is good candidates for public office.


I didn't want to shut this thread down... It was just an idea...
Mike