Pros & Cons for 2AM in Voting for Jerry Brown 2010

[Tarn_Helm]

In another thread, it came to my attention that some of the folks here on this online community are saying that they intend to support Jerry Brown for Governor of CA in 2010.

I had no idea that Brown might be a friend of the Second Amendment.

Is that even true?

If so, how do we know that, through what past actions, votes, statements regarding the right to bear arms?

Please share your thoughts, your references to websites, news articles, books, etc. that can help us weigh his value for Second Amendment supporters.

If there are friends of the Second Amendment anywhere in the current CA government, I want to know who they are, regardless of party affiliation.

[Sam Hainn]

Wow. There are a LOT of previous threads on this topic.

[dustoff31]

I lived in CA when Brown was governor. You'll have to decide how much of an effect he did or didn't have on the following, but during that time:

1. There was no AW ban.
2. NFA permits/signoffs were actually obtainable.
3. There was no handgun roster.
4. There was no waiting period for long guns.
5. There were a heck of a lot more FFLs.

This isn't necessarily an endorsement, just a statement of facts.

[Tarn_Helm]

Wow. There are a LOT of previous threads on this topic.

No offense, Mr. Hainn (got a little of the Gaelic in ya?), but when I used "Jerry Brown" as a search term, here are a few of the needles I got in the first five pages of basically worthless haystack:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=134065&highlight=jerry+brown

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=118860&highlight=jerry+brown

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=107968&highlight=jerry+brown

None of those threads address what I asked for here.

This guy has been around for 30 years.

Surely we can do better than that.

I would like to see a sustained, systematically addressed, and carefully documented response to the issue of Pros and Cons regarding Brown as CA Gov, with respect to the 2nd Amendment, backed up by documentation, citations, footnotes, endnotes, names of newspapers (with dates), hyperlinks, other publicly accessible information sources, et cetera.

What I have seen here so far is scattered, weak, hearsay comments of this nature: "I don't think he banned anything" or "He might be our friend" or "He might not be our enemy" (these are paraphrases).

That is NOT what we need.

We need to start compiling, and save it with a "Sticky," as much documented evidence of his past and present positions on the Second Amendment as we all can find.

We need a "FACT SHEET (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/2008Obamafactsht.pdf)" something like what the NRA-ILA provided on Barack Hussein Obama (even if that didn't end up doing any good).

This is what we need:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/2008Obamafactsht.pdf


The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms. (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/2008Obamafactsht.pdf)

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.


Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

Barack Obama has called for a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms.15

Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws and interstate reciprocity.7

Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of any school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

Barack Obama supports a ban on affordable handguns.9

Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
************************************************** *************************
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00
219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&
session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, “Obama: `Common Sense Regulation` On Gun Owners` Rights,” ABC News` “Political Radar” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama`s Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_
obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates` gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and “Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_
shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-lawenforcement.)

15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.

16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.

17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.

18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.
***
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

[bwiese]

In no particular order:

CA did not file a brief in support of DC in Heller case. I believe one was in the works. To have
a large state *not* file - but with several CA DAs filing in support of Heller - was *HUGE*.


DOJ BoF was significantly downsized from former Firearms Division. Fewer agents - with many
generally moved to working on "law enforcement". JB's attitude has been on crime prevention
and violent crime suppression thru statewide parolee/predator apprehension. Having money
spent on BoF irrelevancies wastes money better spent on 'real crime' (or state DNA lab, etc.)


Iggy Chinn is GONE. His replacement seems to repeatedly not want to tangle with lawyers, or
perhaps he's under orders to stay away from ground he'll get lost on.


Anticipated DOJ testimony about OLL matters in various gun cases just 'dried up' without explanation.


Under JB, there have been no direct AG-generated/filed gun cases: very unlike Lockyer's failed
Pomona gunshow raids (Scott Mills exoneration, Tabor AW estate handling case, etc.).


Certain OLL cases that were filed by local DAs were actually driven under-the-table by lower-level
DOJ employees because of above item: these cases were "shopped" under false pretenses of
correct legal theory and winnability to gullible junior DAs who thought DOJ Firearms Bureau staff
were truly experts. Appears some BoF employees may be allowed to have enough rope to hang
themselves.


Rulemaking (redefinition) of 'detachable magazine' issues was abandoned. It doesn't appear the
lower-level Firearms Div folks wanted it to go away, however. And while we had the formal
technical + legal backing to win, opposition just went away, we did not have to waste time or
resources to fight it at OAL (not that it would have been that difficult).


JB has made multiple repeated public statements over the years that the 2nd/RKBA is an individual
right. Repeated statements in interviews about crime vs gun issues, a la "... folks have a 2nd Amendment
right to firearms..." - in combination w/statements that Oakland crime problems weren't due to ordinary
gun owners like us, but repeat felon parolees dropped back into Oakland - validate this sentiment.


Assertions of other constitutional issues regarding equal protection matters (i.e., same-sex marriage)
allows concomitant support of RKBA on an intellectually consistent basis when viewed by those outside
our fight.

CA politics is weird. Don't expect friends to come out and say they're friends. That doesn't do much good to/for anyone, as actions and results are more useful than public poses. "Cornering" someone can lead to negative results (look what happened with GOC/Sam Paredes and the drama over the F&G commissioner leading to passage of microstamping/lead ammo bills.)

Likely prospective CA Republican candidates for guns have made ZERO favorable mention of guns. One, Steve Poizner, appears to have repeatedly refused to talk to NRA folks. (That could be old info, it was correct a few months ago; it is customary for most prospective candidates for high office to talk - directly or thru senior staff - to major issue groups just to feel each other out.) I hold out out no better or worse hope for other prospective candidate, Meg Whitman.

We also don't hold tons of weight with Republicans because they're on the ropes, often self-destructing. The CA Republicans automagically assume gunnie support and sometimes need to be disabused of that fact. (When the best your party can put up is a nebbish moneybags like Poizner, you know your party is in trouble. He's a Mitt Romney, without the personality or slicked-back hair.)

While the CA Dem party is antigun in overall stance, certain individuals have been very friendly to us. (If you wonder why you have AR pistols in CA, thank a Democrat. And do please think again why microstamping - though passed as law - is essentially unimplementable in CA.)

[TreeServ]

Jerry Brown used to have a statement on his web site that reiterated the collective rights model of the 2nd Amendment as the AG position. I checked for it right after the Heller ruling and was unable to locate it.
Perhaps like Prop. 8, Jerry just goes with the political wind...but I don't think so.

Dave

[Tarn_Helm]

In no particular order:

CA did not file a brief in support of DC in Heller case. I believe one may have been in the works.
To have a state like CA *not* file, with several CA DAs filing in support of Heller was HUGE.



DOJ BoF was significantly downsized from former Firearms Division. Fewer agents - and those are
generally working in "law enforcement".
Iggy Chinn is GONE. His replacement seems to repeatedly not want to tangle with lawyers.



Anticipated DOJ testimony about OLL matters in various gun cases just 'dried up'.



No direct AG-generated/filed gun cases: unlike Lockyer's failed Pomona gunshow raid, etc.



Certain OLL cases that were filed by a DA were under-the-table driven by lower-level DOJ
employes because of item #4 above. Appears some BoF employees may be allowed to have
enough rope to hang themselves.



Rulemaking (redefinition) of 'detachable magazine' issues was abandoned. It doesn't appear
lower-level Firearms Div folks wanted it to go away, however. And while we had the formal
technical + legal backing to win, opposition just went away, we didn't have to fight at OAL.



JB has made multiple repeated public statements over the years that the 2nd/RKBA is an individual
right. Repeated statements about crime gun issues, a la "but folks have a 2nd amendment right to
firearms..." combined with statements in interviews that Oakland crime problems weren't due to
ordinary gun owners but repeat felon parolees dropped back into Oakland.



Assertions of other constitutional rights & equal protection issues allows concomitant support
of RKBA on an intellectually consistent basis when viewed by those outside our fight.


CA politics is weird. Don't expect friends to come out and say they're friends. That doesn't do much good to/for anyone, actions are more useful.

Likely prospective CA Republican candidates for guns have made ZERO favorable mention of guns. One, Steve Poizner, appears to have repeatedly refused to talk to NRA folks. (That could be old info, it was correct a few months ago; it is customary for most prospective candidates for high office to talk - directly or thru senior staff - to major issue groups.) I hold out out no better hope for Meg Whitman.

We also don't hold a tons of weight with Republicans because they're on the ropes, often self-destructing. They automagically assume gunnie support and need to be disabused of that fact. While the CA Dem party is anti gun certain individuals have been very friendly to us. (If you wonder why you have AR pistols in CA, thank a Democrat. And think again why microstamping is unimplementable in CA.)

Mr. Wiese,

I know I have crossed swords with you in the past, so I thank you for not holding a grudge and for just posting a relevant non-belligerent response.

Let's let bygones be bygones. :)

Now that that is out of the way, I would like to add something else.

It would be extremely good for CA and for the U.S. in general if we could get shall-issue implemented here and not just for the direct and obvious reason that most of us here on this forum could then legally carry concealed, loaded firearms for purposes of lawful self-defense.

It would also help to advance the cause of "American Exceptionalism" (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/american-exceptionalism.htm) here in western hemisphere and globally.

For the sake of the right to keep and bear arms, we do not want the U.S.A. to become just like most other "First World" countries, which egregiously infringe that right.
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441)
American Exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Overview) is not a simple concept but its basic outlines are not hard to grasp:

"The basis most commonly cited for American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and its people differ from other nations, at least on a historical basis, as an association of people who came from numerous places throughout the world but who hold a common bond in standing for certain self-evident truths, like freedom, inalienable natural and human rights, democracy, republicanism, the rule of law, civil liberty, civic virtue, the common good, fair play, private property, and Constitutional government; and that through these values America diverged from the rest of the world . . . " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism)

That is the larger picture I have in mind.

I am beginning to get a sense, thanks in part to things I've read here on this forum, of just how weird the world of politics in CA really is.

I hope we can put as much salient detail into this thread as possible.

I could get behind a candidate that would be support shall issue--even if he is not wearing the correct brand name on the voting ballot.

But I need to see more fact, more detail, more documentation first.

So let's keep it coming--more detailed tracking of JB's past statements regarding shall issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry) and RKBA.
:thumbsup:
Again, thank you, Mr. Wiese.
:clap:

[JDay]

Official portrait.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/E_brownjr.jpg

[yellowfin]

Has Steve Poizner taken any action or made any public statements one way or the other?

[CCWFacts]

I agree with you on CCW and "American exceptionalism". We should be leading the rest of the world into a freedom that they currently have. And getting this country to be shall-issue, coast-to-coast, will be a part of that. Another component would creating a smoother path for foreign visitors to bring in guns and get American CCWs while they are here.

[hoffmang]

Jerry Brown used to have a statement on his web site that reiterated the collective rights model of the 2nd Amendment as the AG position. I checked for it right after the Heller ruling and was unable to locate it.
Perhaps like Prop. 8, Jerry just goes with the political wind...but I don't think so.

Dave

FYI that that was a Lockyer written web page - not a Brown written web page.

-Gene

[nicki]

Jerry is going to be in a crowded Dem field, the sooner we get involved, the more influence we wil have with him.

Nicki

[Yankee Clipper]

I agree with you on CCW and "American exceptionalism". We should be leading the rest of the world into a freedom that they currently have. And getting this country to be shall-issue, coast-to-coast, will be a part of that. Another component would creating a smoother path for foreign visitors to bring in guns and get American CCWs while they are here.

Wow! Would you mind expanding on that statement (or maybe you have in another tread and can refer to it) as to how that would work. You may, though, want to start a separate tread, because it’s a little off topic.
Thanks!

[Liberty1]

Has Steve Poizner taken any action or made any public statements one way or the other?

I believe he's running. Wish he had a chance but just as Bush holding office was a negative for McCain, Arnold will be the same for him (IMO) at least for those voters stuck with the "Change" desire in their little heads and the fact that the Dems registered a rather large number of new voters in the state.

Do we need to be registered Dem for vote JB in the primary?

[yellowfin]

I meant one way or the other pro or anti RKBA, sorry for not clarifying.

[bulgron]

Do we need to be registered Dem for vote JB in the primary?

I believe in the last primary, if you were registered "Declines to State" or "Democrat" then you could vote in the Democrat primary.

I'm usually "Declines to State" but for the last primary I wanted to vote for Ron Paul so I temporarily switched my registration to Republican. If I continue to hear good things about Brown, then I'll do whatever is necessary (including switching to Dem) in order to vote for him in the Dem primary.

The one thing in our favor is that 2010 will be an off-year election, which means the Media-Created Larger-Than-Life Historical candidate Barrack Obama will not be on the ticket. This means that at least some of those first-time voters will be unlikely to turn out for the election, especially the primary. So if we decide Brown is our guy, we have a decent shot at getting him into the Governor seat if enough of us can hold our noses and vote in the Dem primary.

ETA: One thing that would convince me that Brown is our guy is if he would change the published AG opinion on Good Cause to state that Personal Self Defense is a valid Good Cause. I hope well-positioned people continue to suggest that course of action to him.

[wildhawker]

Barring any substantial and unforseeable implosion in the party, a Democrat will win CA in 2010. I find it highly improbable that a conservative majority is in the cards for the CA legislature at any time in the near future. That said, some of us right-leaning folks will need to evaluate if we can submit to the non-firearms positions of a RKBA-sympathetic Democratic candidate. We'll see what kind of issues are important two years from the election of Mr. Obama.

I'd be highly surprised if a Feinstein-type candidate didn't flush out any support of RKBA or his body of work as AG regarding firearms by Mr. Brown and use it against him during the primary campaign.

Keeping in mind that a Democrat sympathetic to 2A rights is in very dangerous territory here in CA, we should be somewhat cognizant of this when we inquire as to his positions *on the record*. As alluded to by Mr. Wiese, the silence is deafening.

[TheBundo]

I lived in CA when Brown was governor. You'll have to decide how much of an effect he did or didn't have on the following, but during that time:

1. There was no AW ban.
2. NFA permits/signoffs were actually obtainable.
3. There was no handgun roster.
4. There was no waiting period for long guns.
5. There were a heck of a lot more FFLs.

This isn't necessarily an endorsement, just a statement of facts.

But that's how it ALWAYS had been when he took over for Reagan. Mood was a lot different then

[Shotgun Man]

But that's how it ALWAYS had been when he took over for Reagan. Mood was a lot different then

Keep in mind that Jerry Brown went on record in the wake of Heller saying it was the right decision.

He had a populist viewpoint-- how could the 2A not be interpreted to mean what it says?

[dfletcher]

I presume we'll still have the same liberal make up of legislators in Sacramento for a while. As Governor, who is going to be better able to influence them - a fellow Democrat or a Republican? Of course the trick is being certain that Democrat is pro 2nd. If he isn't, we're going to have a very, very tough time of it.

I think I'd rather have a "2nd Amendment disinterested" Republican Governor than a disinterested Democrat - at least the Republican Party in general in CA is progun and I presume, even if disinterested, a Republican Governor would have his fellow party members to deal with.

[berto]

The next gov. will likely be a dem. Brown is by far the best of the bunch. DiFi is likely to stay in DC and 2A is unlikely to play a major role in the dem. primary as they have other issues to wet each other's legs over.

[bwiese]

I think I'd rather have a "2nd Amendment disinterested" Republican Governor than a disinterested Democrat - at least the Republican Party in general in CA is progun and I presume, even if disinterested, a Republican Governor would have his fellow party members to deal with.

It's a pretty thought, but look at Arnie. (Though we shot ourselves in our own foot via GOC missteps on AB1471/AB821 in 2006.)

[bulgron]

I think I'd rather have a "2nd Amendment disinterested" Republican Governor than a disinterested Democrat - at least the Republican Party in general in CA is progun and I presume, even if disinterested, a Republican Governor would have his fellow party members to deal with.

I'm not sure exactly how pro-gun Californian Republicans really are. Sometimes I think they're only pro-gun because the Dems are anti and it proves to be a good wedge issue to get independent voters like me to vote Republican.

From my point of view, it's always best to ferret out the 2A stance of the politicians for any given election, and vote for the one with the most favorable opinion of the 2A. Unfortunately, here in the Bay Area, I usually don't have much of a choice in the matter. Almost all of the politicians, including the Republicans, are anti-gun. Heck, even our "no way no how am I issuing little people CCWs" sheriff is a Republican. It doesn't matter. They're from the authoritarian arm of the Republican party and no way do they want the little guy armed.

Mostly I just vote against the incumbent for local races. Usually, this means I'm voting for a Republican because the Democrats have a death-grip on this county. But that doesn't mean I think that the Republican is actually interested in defending my right to keep and bear arms. Far from it.

[artherd]

I had no idea that Brown might be a friend of the Second Amendment.

Is that even true?


I've met him, and yes.

[Tarn_Helm]

I'm not sure exactly how pro-gun Californian Republicans really are. Sometimes I think they're only pro-gun because the Dems are anti and it proves to be a good wedge issue to get independent voters like me to vote Republican.

From my point of view, it's always best to ferret out the 2A stance of the politicians for any given election, and vote for the one with the most favorable opinion of the 2A. Unfortunately, here in the Bay Area, I usually don't have much of a choice in the matter. Almost all of the politicians, including the Republicans, are anti-gun. Heck, even our "no way no how am I issuing little people CCWs" sheriff is a Republican. It doesn't matter. They're from the authoritarian arm of the Republican party and no way do they want the little guy armed.

Mostly I just vote against the incumbent for local races. Usually, this means I'm voting for a Republican because the Democrats have a death-grip on this county. But that doesn't mean I think that the Republican is actually interested in defending my right to keep and bear arms. Far from it. [bold added by me]

If the part I put in bold above is true, and if that is the reason why I cannot get a CCW in CA (I've never applied, but I'm not stupid--I know better), then Republicans have just lost a CA voter and financial supporter.
:taz::rant::banghead:

[jacques]

[bold added by me]

If the part I put in bold above is true, and if that is the reason why I cannot get a CCW in CA (I've never applied, but I'm not stupid--I know better), then Republicans have just lost a CA voter and financial supporter.
:taz::rant::banghead:

The part in bold is why we have the 2nd Ammendment.

[Tarn_Helm]

The part in bold is why we have the 2nd Ammendment.

I get that.

What is your point?
:confused:

[yellowfin]

The part in bold is why we have the 2nd Ammendment.In theory, yes, but since they flatly ignore it, then what?

[Aegis]

I generally disagree with Jerry Brown on most issues, however, he may be the best of the candidates running as it relates to gun issues. A strong pro 2A Republican candidate does not have a chance to win in this state.

Most of the folks on this site who appear to be dialed in claim that Brown will be an advocate for gun owners post incorporation. I am willing to wait to see his true actions towards the defense of the 2A after the Nordyke ruling.

[Glock22Fan]

If the part I put in bold above is true, and if that is the reason why I cannot get a CCW in CA (I've never applied, but I'm not stupid--I know better), then Republicans have just lost a CA voter and financial supporter.
:taz::rant::banghead:

If, as your heading states, you live in Los Angeles, the reason that you won't get a CCW is far more connected with your lack of celebrity status than is the Republican position on the issue.

In general, the red counties issue far more freely than the blue counties, which tend to have far more liberal gun haters.

[jacques]

In theory, yes, but since they flatly ignore it, then what?

I would say that is why most of us are here. To find ways to squash these A-holes. Your sig line shows you are probably involved, there is calguns foundation, NRA and RWVA. As well as, and most importantly, getting the word out and educating people.

I would say, in the short term, we will always find resistance, just like in DC with the Heller ruling. But eventually these people need to go.

If the state persists, you tell me. The feds come in and take care of it?

If Jerry Brown is Pro 2A, more power to us. That would be a giant step in the right direction.

[dfletcher]

It's a pretty thought, but look at Arnie. (Though we shot ourselves in our own foot via GOC missteps on AB1471/AB821 in 2006.)

It's true we always have to temper our "Progun Republicans" bit with the reality of Arnold's performance. But I do think we'd have more restrictions had a Dem been in there for the past few years - Arnold did veto more than a few bills I think a Dem would have signed.

I don't know that CA has ever been very good at producing true Conservatives - at least for the past 40 years or so.

[M1884]

It just goes to show you that party affiliation is not necessarily diagnostic. There are scads of pro-gun Dems out there; they just tend to be quiet about it.

[E. Fudd]

I recall on more than one occasion, while mayor of Oakland, of Brown making anti-gun statements in media interviews (e.g. KCBS radio) as regards to solving Oakland's violent crime problems.

I don't remember the specifics, but remembered at the time that it was definitely anti-RKBA, proving that he is not pro-gun, contrary to what I had also heard, prior to his taking office in Oakland.

Or maybe he just blows with the political winds...

Am waiting to see his latest official stand on RKBA...

[yellowfin]

I guess there's no hope to beg, borrow, or steal a legitimate conservative from out of the woodwork somewhere? Are we really this desperate for candidates we have to run an almost has-been with a shaky past against a hell creature and some goofballs?

[bwiese]

I guess there's no hope to beg, borrow, or steal a legitimate conservative from out of the woodwork somewhere?

No. The R's have self-destructed in CA over the last decade.

They will be luck to retain 'safe seats' given demographic shifts.

They are perceived in key voting areas as being out of touch with even fairly conservative Californians. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, it's their marketing that sucks - and the fact that the taint sweeps broadly across the party: few Republicans (conservative or otherwise) can manage to attain up-ticket statewide office. Fergawdsakes, they''re reaching down to a friggin' *insurance commissioner* to try to run for gov.

[yellowfin]

Understood. But since they've hit rock bottom, is there a possibility of takeover and turnaround? Surely someone besides you and me notices this disarray, isn't happy, and will not put up with it continuing. Or am I just thinking rationally and hopefully in a situation and place that has little or no track record of abiding rationality?

[wildhawker]

Understood. But since they've hit rock bottom, is there a possibility of takeover and turnaround? Surely someone besides you and me notices this disarray, isn't happy, and will not put up with it continuing. Or am I just thinking rationally and hopefully in a situation and place that has little or no track record of abiding rationality?

Definitely possible, but doubfut. The last thing RNC wants or needs is a cowboy CalGOP. They are looking for answers for their big issues at the national level... how it trickles down into state and local politics is TBD. It would be tough enough to sell a fresh, new, rebranded GOP while CalGOP goes off the deep end throwing 3 sheets to the wind in the search for the last honest, passionate polliticians.

[berto]

Understood. But since they've hit rock bottom, is there a possibility of takeover and turnaround? Surely someone besides you and me notices this disarray, isn't happy, and will not put up with it continuing. Or am I just thinking rationally and hopefully in a situation and place that has little or no track record of abiding rationality?

Part of the party would rather remain ideologically pure. They won the last takeover battle (early 90's) and have been reaping diminishing returns and increasingly fighting for relevancy ever since. The demographic shift Bill mentioned calls for a new message. The republican party can compete on many issues but continues to focus on certain issues that drive a large majority of the electorate away.

The new reapportionment process will at least return some sense to congressional districts but even that process will take years. Right now the cupboard is bare.