PDA

View Full Version : Sheriff Jay LaSuer CCW position.


Pages : [1] 2 3

nicki
02-15-2009, 4:13 AM
First, I want to say Jay is a champion of gun rights and we are lucky to have such a man running in San Diego.

Jay has a heavy emphasis on gun rights when it comes to CCW and I agree with him.

I just would like to make a friendly suggestion for him to exploit the various problems of the current equal protection problems with the current system and the problems it has caused not only in San Diego, but other counties.

The CCW system has been used to give "privileges" to a select few that are not readily available to the general public. Sheriff Baca is a good example that only the privileged need apply.

The issue could be tailored so that it becomes a anti corruption issue.

I know Jay is checking this board, so I am including a poll. Your participation will help Jay.

Thanks everyone.

Spyder
02-15-2009, 7:06 AM
Not very clear what you're getting at...

Or, I'm dumb. It's been known to happen.

ilbob
02-15-2009, 8:01 AM
My vote is this.

The sheriff does not get to choose what CCW issuing system is in place. The state decided that, and he cannot change it.

What he can do is make it clear that in his opinion, personal protection is considered adequate good cause for issuance, and that is how he will run the CC licensing program when he is elected.

paladin4415
02-15-2009, 8:05 AM
What he can do is make it clear that in his opinion, personal protection is considered adequate good cause for issuance, and that is how he will run the CC licensing program when he is elected.

I believe that is his position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

PatriotnMore
02-15-2009, 8:10 AM
What he can do is make it clear that in his opinion, personal protection is considered adequate good cause for issuance, and that is how he will run the CC licensing program when he is elected.

I agree, those who choose to carry, can demonstrate good citizenship, and lawful lives, should have the opportunity to be armed, if they desire.

CCWFacts
02-15-2009, 8:14 AM
I'm going to leap in here again, because I see that at least two people selected "May issue means only the rich,not the poor, get CCWs".

First of all, San Diego will be may issue no matter what Sheriff Jay does. May issue is a fact of California's law. No sheriff in this state can change that law, and every sheriff in this state who is described as being "shall issue" does, in fact, use his discretion to exclude certain people in certain circumstances.

For example, if you were sheriff, and someone came in, and had no legal disqualifications (no felonies or disqualifying misdemeanors), but you looked up his record and you see he's had 5 arrests for brawling or public drunkenness in the past year. You talk to the officer who made the arrests and he says, "Yeah, that guy really can't control himself. The prosecutor didn't want to do anything about these minor incidents so we didn't get any convictions, but I know he's violent and he's been involved in worse stuff. We just haven't pinned it on him yet. Sooner or later I think we'll arrest him for something a lot more serious."

Would you issue to that person? Maybe you would say "of course I would" but it's easy to say that when you're not really in a position of doing it and having to live with the consequences. I don't think anyone here would really issue in a situation like that.

So if Jay comes out and makes some statement like, "I will issue to anyone who meets the legal requirements", he's putting himself in an impossible position: he ends up either having to go back on his promise when someone with a long arrest (but no conviction) record walks in, or he ends up having to issue to some people who really shouldn't be carrying guns or having CCWs.

This debate over Jay really frustrates me.

PatriotnMore
02-15-2009, 8:34 AM
For example, if you were sheriff, and someone came in, and had no legal disqualifications (no felonies or disqualifying misdemeanors), but you looked up his record and you see he's had 5 arrests for brawling or public drunkenness in the past year. You talk to the officer who made the arrests and he says, "Yeah, that guy really can't control himself. The prosecutor didn't want to do anything about these minor incidents so we didn't get any convictions, but I know he's violent and he's been involved in worse stuff. We just haven't pinned it on him yet. Sooner or later I think we'll arrest him for something a lot more serious." Excellent point.

Would you issue to that person? Maybe you would say "of course I would" but it's easy to say that when you're not really in a position of doing it and having to live with the consequences. I don't think anyone here would really issue in a situation like that. I agree. Moreover, as stated below, an individual with a long arrest record, has not demonstrated IMO, good citizenship, or lawful living.

So if Jay comes out and makes some statement like, "I will issue to anyone who meets the legal requirements", he's putting himself in an impossible position: he ends up either having to go back on his promise when someone with a long arrest (but no conviction) record walks in, or he ends up having to issue to some people who really shouldn't be carrying guns or having CCWs.

This debate over Jay really frustrates me.

CCWFacts
02-15-2009, 9:09 AM
And by the way, in case you're doubting Jay's RKBA credentials, keep in mind, he sponsored AB 448 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_448_cfa_20060109_123908_asm_comm.html), a bill to repeal California's assault weapons ban entirely. Yes, it was a hopeless bill, but he introduced it because he believed it was the right thing, even though he knew it couldn't pass.

What does it take to get people here to understand this guy is pro-CCW? As we were saying in the other thread (many posts got deleted), does he need to promise a free Uzi and 100 rounds of ammo to all residents before he'll be accepted as being pro-CCW / RKBA?

He has the most solid and public pro-RKBA stance of any California political leader I know of, and people here are still claiming he's not solid on CCW. It really frustrates me.

pullnshoot25
02-15-2009, 9:16 AM
And by the way, in case you're doubting Jay's RKBA credentials, keep in mind, he sponsored AB 448 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_448_cfa_20060109_123908_asm_comm.html), a bill to repeal California's assault weapons ban entirely. Yes, it was a hopeless bill, but he introduced it because he believed it was the right thing, even though he knew it couldn't pass.

What does it take to get people here to understand this guy is pro-CCW? As we were saying in the other thread (many posts got deleted), does he need to promise a free Uzi and 100 rounds of ammo to all residents before he'll be accepted as being pro-CCW / RKBA?

He has the most solid and public pro-RKBA stance of any California political leader I know of, and people here are still claiming he's not solid on CCW. It really frustrates me.

GO JAY!

CCWFacts
02-15-2009, 10:09 AM
And by the way, someone could have not just a long arrest record, but a long list of non-disqualifying misdemeanor convictions, like public drunkenness and I'm not sure what else. I don't have the list of DQing misdemeanors in front of me, but I can imagine a person could have a lot of misdemeanor convictions for things that indicate real problems, and still be legally eligible for a CCW. I don't think misdemeanor DUI is DQing (I'm not looking at the list right now), but if some has had a couple of those, a few arrests for brawling, and so on, you know the guy shouldn't be carrying even if he's not legally DQed.

Jay can't make a promise that he would be unable to keep, and if he promised to issue to everyone who meets the minimum legal requirements, there's no way a responsible person would be able do that, because it would mean issuing CCWs to people with numerous arrests and misdemeanors, who obviously should not be carrying guns.

bwiese
02-15-2009, 10:38 AM
Jay can't make a promise that he would be unable to keep, and if he promised
to issue to everyone who meets the minimum legal requirements...

Jay has made wild promises in the past.

I'm just wondering why Jay wanted to criminalize hicap mag possession in the past (AB2218) and make the AW laws even worse.

Word reached me Jay LaS. told quite a few folks he could get the DOJ to get rid of the AW list(s) as a tradeoff for this. Either that was a wholly fraudulent statement, or it reflects a completely incompetent misunderstanding of CA's AW laws and statutory vs regulatory issues. Incompetence or disingenuity, take your choice.

Given the above, I dunno if I'd believe him regarding CCW policies, since he sure as hell in the past wants to say things people want to hear regardless of facts/ability.

motorhead
02-15-2009, 11:02 AM
jay needs to state exactly what he feels is good cause. since he's governed by the state may issue statute which grants the CLEO widely sweeping powers and absolutely no guidelines to determine what constitutes good cause. all we have so far is he's ccw friendly. let's see some facts.

CCWFacts
02-15-2009, 11:56 AM
Jay has made wild promises in the past.

I'm just wondering why Jay wanted to criminalize hicap mag possession in the past (AB2218) and make the AW laws even worse.

I wasn't aware of the full consequences of AB 2218.

bwiese
02-15-2009, 12:36 PM
I wasn't aware of the full consequences of AB 2218.

Sad but very true. The law was a "posturing piece" to gain PR without thought (or rather, *in spite of thought*) to the severe REAL consequences - mag bans, constructive possession issues, etc.

I myself am particularly aggrieved because I'd've been screwed due to some complex interactions between some of my rifles. and most OLLs would likely not exist today.

Jay & crew were in fact advised of the non-wisdom of driving AB2218 thru the full course. Thankfully, it didn't pass.

Please understand my distress when an antigun bill is attempted to be driven by a supposed pro-gunner. Accidental issues are one thing, but when it's pushed forward for PR drama in spite of intelligent advice it's a whole 'nuther thing.

CCWFacts
02-15-2009, 12:54 PM
Please understand my distress when an antigun bill is attempted to be driven by a supposed pro-gunner. Accidental issues are one thing, but when it's pushed forward for PR drama in spite of intelligent advice it's a whole 'nuter thing.

I understand. Many people (including me) would consider the FOPA such a bill: probably the worst federal gun-ban bill ever, which was marketed as "firearms owner protection", and which pains a lot of people still today.

vrand
02-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Please understand my distress when an antigun bill is attempted to be driven by a supposed pro-gunner. Accidental issues are one thing, but when it's pushed forward for PR drama in spite of intelligent advice it's a whole 'nuter thing.

:eek:

Linh
02-15-2009, 8:31 PM
I want to know what his thoughs are on the OLL issue? So that should mean that the sheriff department would all be cool with it and there won't be any uneducated deputies on the OLL issue.

I hope he does get elected cause the state is planning on releasing so many prisoners it's not even funny or hopefully I'll get picked up in law enforcement (can't wait to arrest those calgunners with OLL) It seems that criminals love the sunshine.

BTW when is this vote for the Sheriff gonna take place.

mike_schwartz@mail.com
02-15-2009, 8:49 PM
From jay's website regarding CCWs. The election is in 2010.

Many elected officials seem to have forgotten that when they took their oath of office they swore to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. The last time I read the U.S. Constitution, it still contained the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. These same elected officials also seem to have forgotten that when this nation declared its independence, the founding fathers stated that our creator gave us certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; which I believe includes citizen’s and their family’s safety.

There are many other elected officials who act as though they believe only they are trustworthy and law abiding citizens; that law abiding citizens must look to them for their quality of life and their protection from violence. In other words, these elected officials do not trust those law abiding citizens, the very people who built this nation, and whose sons, daughters, husbands and wives have served in our armed forces to guarantee the freedoms and rights our founding fathers intended for all citizens, past, present and future to hold and enjoy.

Law enforcement will admi8t that even if a law enforcement officer was assigned to every city block and every rural area, they could not guarantee the safety of those they are sworn to protect and serve.

Currently, 40 states have “Right to Carry” laws (RTC) and 36 states have “Shall Issue” laws pertaining to the right of their law abiding citizens to have Concealed Carry Permits (CCW). Many predicted enactment of such laws would cause violence and crime to soar. This has not been the case. States where “Shall Issue” laws exist follow certain criteria which must be met prior to issuing such permits. Persons not eligible for the license include, but are not limited to the following:

Convicted felons.
Persons who have had restraining orders issued against them.
Minors.
Persons with mental illness and/or psychological problems that would prohibit them from functioning without medication.
Persons who have been convicted of the manufacture, sales or distribution of illegal substance(s).
Those who have a history of numerous encounters with law enforcement.
Plus a few others.
Those who; apply for a concealed carry permit must demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the laws pertaining to the use of lethal force and competency with their firearm. And, they must pass a law enforcement background check to verify the statements contained within their application.

Once the above criteria have been met, the applicant must be issued the permit. The issuance is based on these criteria and these criteria only, not on the whim of some bureaucrat. There are also rules which must be adhered to by those persons who have qualified for and obtained a CCW permit. For example, if a person who has been issued a CCW permit is arrested and convicted for driving under the influence (DUI), that persons permit, is immediately revoked.

Many “Politically Correct” officials will raise the shrill alarm that such action is nothing less than creating an armed camp in our neighborhoods. But historically this is an untrue belief with no basis in fact.

I believe we should glean the knowledge and experience from the thirty-six states with “Shall Issue’ laws and follow suit. The history of the thirty-six “Shall Issue” states proves that issuance of CCW permits helps protect citizens and actually prevents crime. In my over thirty years of law enforcement experience, I have encountered many individuals with concealed carry permits. I have never had a bad experience with any of these citizens. I have, however, arrested numerous criminals illegally carrying concealed firearms. None of the criminals would have been eligible to legally carry a concealed firearm – their only purpose was to prey on law abiding citizens who had not been granted the right to carry a concealed firearm.

Taco130
02-15-2009, 8:51 PM
For example, if you were sheriff, and someone came in, and had no legal disqualifications (no felonies or disqualifying misdemeanors), but you looked up his record and you see he's had 5 arrests for brawling or public drunkenness in the past year. You talk to the officer who made the arrests and he says, "Yeah, that guy really can't control himself. The prosecutor didn't want to do anything about these minor incidents so we didn't get any convictions, but I know he's violent and he's been involved in worse stuff.

WSo if Jay comes out and makes some statement like, "I will issue to anyone who meets the legal requirements", he's putting himself in an impossible position: he ends up either having to go back on his promise when someone with a long arrest (but no conviction) record walks in, or he ends up having to issue to some people who really shouldn't be carrying guns or having CCWs.

Jay has given the following information on who would NOT be issued a CCW (from his website). Please note the final two disqualifiers:

Convicted felons.
Persons who have had restraining orders issued against them.
Minors.
Persons with mental illness and/or psychological problems that would prohibit them from functioning without medication.
Persons who have been convicted of the manufacture, sales or distribution of illegal substance(s).
Those who have a history of numerous encounters with law enforcement.
Plus a few others.

Works for me. I respect Jay's right not to issue a CCW to some idiot brawler (even if not convicted of a crime), or some other malcontent that through his actions has proven himself too irresponsible and/or immature to be trusted with a concealed firearm.

My impression of Jay's position is that he will issue a CCW to all law abiding, good citizens, that have completed the required training, and passed the background check. A drunken brawler with numerous encounters with the police doesn't meet his criteria. I have no problem with this.

pullnshoot25
02-15-2009, 11:03 PM
Sad but very true. The law was a "posturing piece" to gain PR without thought (or rather, *in spite of thought*) to the severe REAL consequences - mag bans, constructive possession issues, etc.

I myself particularly aggrieved because I'd've been screwed due to some complex interactions, and OLLs would likely not exist.

Jay & crew were in fact advised of the non-wisdom of driving AB2218 thru the full course. Thankfully, it didn't pass.

Please understand my distress when an antigun bill is attempted to be driven by a supposed pro-gunner. Accidental issues are one thing, but when it's pushed forward for PR drama in spite of intelligent advice it's a whole 'nuter thing.

I'd like to see what Jay has to say about this...

bwiese
02-16-2009, 9:01 AM
I understand. Many people (including me) would consider the FOPA such a bill: probably the worst federal gun-ban bill ever, which was marketed as "firearms owner protection", and which pains a lot of people still today.

FOPA was a progun bill. The NFA stuff was added at the very last minute by antis with no time to kill the bill. (The congressional makeup in 1986 was not nearly as strong as we have now.)

motorhead
02-16-2009, 9:22 AM
jay's support of shall issue is a brave position to take in public. and a moot point. if grasshoppers had aks birds wouldn't mess with them. he doesn't state his REAL LIFE position, such as his view of what constitutes good cause.
i'm not bashing jay. i like him and he most likely has my vote. i just like to see real positions not perfect world scenarios even if they do make me feel good.

bwiese
02-16-2009, 10:21 AM
Sad but very true. The law (AB2218) was a "posturing piece" to gain PR without thought (or rather, *in spite of thought*) of the resulting severe REAL consequences - mag bans, constructive possession issues, etc.

I myself particularly aggrieved because I'd've been screwed due to some complex interactions, and OLLs would likely not exist.

Jay & crew were in fact advised of the non-wisdom of driving AB2218 thru the full course. Thankfully, it didn't pass.

Please understand my distress when an antigun bill is attempted to be driven by a supposed pro-gunner. Accidental issues are one thing, but when it's pushed forward for PR drama in spite of intelligent advice it's a whole 'nuter thing.consequences - mag bans, constructive possession issues, etc.

I myself particularly aggrieved because I'd've been screwed due to some complex interactions, and OLLs would likely not exist.

Jay & crew were in fact advised of the non-wisdom of driving AB2218 thru the full course. Thankfully, it didn't pass.

Please understand my distress when an antigun bill is attempted to be driven by a supposed pro-gunner. Accidental issues are one thing, but when it's pushed forward for PR drama in spite of intelligent advice it's a whole 'nuter thing.


I'd like to see what Jay has to say about this...



There's not much he can say. He can either lie, dance around the issue, or send GOC's Sam Paredes to attack me based on non-facts.

The whole problem he'll have is that AB2218 is on the record - for a minor benefit he created a disaster for many others - and in spite of legal advice.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html



Res ipsa loquitor.

mike_schwartz@mail.com
02-16-2009, 6:54 PM
Bill, I always enjoy reading your posts and really respect your involvement in protecting Second Amendment rights. The posts about Jay under this thread…it seems like the implication is that he is anti-gun. The history appears to be that an attempt to do some political maneuvering in favor of guns (specifically AB2218) would have had unintended results. I can see that you are not happy with those efforts, and that is fair, but I do not see the connection between his ability to write an assembly bill and his job as Sheriff. As Sheriff, his only connection with gun laws is issuing CCWs which has nothing to do with “assault” weapons or writing legislation. He’s spelled out his stance on CCWs on his website and I do not see any reason to doubt his ability to follow through with his proposed process or his sincerity (especially with such a controversial subject). This being the case…perhaps you do not want to support him, but what is the benefit of discoursing others from supporting him. Especially when it is so hard finding pro-CCW candidates in this state. If elected, what do you believe he would do that you do not like?

bwiese
02-16-2009, 7:34 PM
Bill.... the posts about Jay
under this thread…it seems like the implication is that he is anti-gun.

Well, we have documented behavior - i.e, the existence of introduced legislation - that he wanted to ban hicap mags.

If he says he's pro-gun yet made antigun deal for a quick bout of grandstanding political expediency, how could you believe that POS on anything else gun-related?

Any gun law proposed can never be one step ahead but eight steps backwards.

Remember how other supposedly pro-gun actors gave us the safe handgun lists.



The history appears to be that an attempt to do some political maneuvering in favor of guns (specifically
AB2218) would have had unintended results.


No, he was kept well-informed of the prospective results and warned repeatedly of dangers by Various Right People. He continued to grandstand on the issue.

(The bill's language itself may have been drafted by Sam Paredes of GOC.)


I can see that you are not happy with those efforts, and that is fair...


Yup.

but I do not see the connection between his ability to write an assembly bill
and his job as Sheriff.It's less about his ability to write a bill than the dishonesty.

At this point it's not about skill & ability it's about fraud. It might be forgivable if it was pure stupidity - but he was repeatedly warned about the bill's dangers.

Backstabbing of CA gunnies for political gain completely deflates *any* claim to being pro-gun.


support him, but what is the benefit of discoursing others from supporting him.

A significant fraction of folks here would probably be interested in his turncoat background, esp as this law could well have affected them.


Especially when it is so hard finding pro-CCW candidates in this state.
If elected, what do you believe he would do that you do not like?



I think we need to set an example by kicking his head to the curb for being a backstabber.

Plus, he's not really electable, he doesn't have the numbers/backing/etc.

By contrast, there's far more chance of bumping off OC's Hutchens in the future.

BTW If I'm remembering correctly, I believe you're part of SoCal NRA Members' Council leadership. I suggest you should consult with others in that management chain to separately verify details and whether or not you can formally support a candidate in your role.

yellowfin
02-16-2009, 7:58 PM
^ How recent was the bad stuff? My apologies in that even though I read most everything on here I don't have more than a year's worth of following CA's soap opera. (Or Hoppes #9 opera?)

bwiese
02-16-2009, 8:19 PM
^ How recent was the bad stuff?

2004. Not like it's old history.

Flintlock Tom
02-16-2009, 8:43 PM
2004. Not like it's old history.

LaSuers overall record is clearly pro-gun rights. If LaSuer does not win the office, someone who is far less CCW friendly will.
Please allow the residents of San Diego county to elect our own sheriff by not undermining our best chance at "shall issue" CCW.

You have made your personal opinion perfectly clear:
how could you believe that POS on anything else gun-related?
Please allow us to have a personal opinion, also, without implying that an affiliation with the NRA should discredit that opinion.

bwiese
02-16-2009, 8:58 PM
LaSuers overall record is clearly pro-gun rights. If LaSuer does not win the office, someone who is far less CCW friendly will.
Please allow the residents of San Diego county to elect our own sheriff by not undermining our best chance at "shall issue" CCW.

You have made your personal opinion perfectly clear:

Please allow us to have a personal opinion, also, without implying that an affiliation with the NRA should discredit that opinion.

You seem to be caught up in the magic of promises vs reality.

For example, we've also seen how the CAFR lobbyist and retiring CRPA lobbyist gave us the 'unsafe handgun' laws. We saw how they supported mail order ammo bills. They all said they were working for gunrights.

I'm sorry, I've had it up to here with folks working toward antigun results thru pomposity or nefariousness but using the cover of gun rights as a way of putting blinders on their supportes.


His OVERALL record is one of noneffective pomposity w/r/to gunrights. Hell, I don't think Jay LaSeur originated/carried a single *passable* gun bill in his term. All his bills were posturing ones that had zero results.

If I can't trust him with hicaps and cluserf*cking constructive possession, how the hell can you trust him with anything else?

Don't be a sellout for a sellout.

Alaric
02-16-2009, 9:00 PM
Is there a candidate for SD County Sheriff who has a pro-ccw issuance platform who isn't LaSuer, and is more electable than LaSuer? As far as I know, there is not.

Seems to me the best idea here is about supporting the best candidate for our interests, even if he wasn't 100% in our camp before.

mike_schwartz@mail.com
02-16-2009, 9:00 PM
I am missing a key point. Can you give more details as to the backstabbing? So far it just looks like a difference of opinion between you and Jay LaSuer. What political gain was involved for Jay LaSuer? The district he represented is pretty firmly pro-gun. And a difference of opinion just doesn’t seem like fraud. If he was told that there would be certain consequences to a bill and he had a difference of opinion, how is that fraud? If there is further evidence to show he intended to further erode the rights of Californians, I am interested in hearing it.

CCWFacts
02-16-2009, 9:24 PM
Could this have been a situation where Sheriff Jay was being misled by the GOC / GOA (or one of the other professional anti-NRA groups)? They really have a twisted approach to this whole and could have deceived him perhaps?

bwiese
02-16-2009, 11:37 PM
Could this have been a situation where Sheriff Jay was being misled by the GOC / GOA (or one of the other professional anti-NRA groups)? They really have a twisted approach to this whole and could have deceived him perhaps?

That might be an initial impression.

But LaSeur himself was the one that refused to budge by either modifying or killing his own bill in spite of Advice With a Capital A.

The bill indeed was likely drafted by Paredes of GOC but LaSeur himself was cleary informed, multiple times, of its dangers and he refused to move. In fact he was so desparate to keep his little pose going he tried to reach out to Wayne & crew and get some NRA folks spanked (which didn't happen).

bwiese
02-16-2009, 11:45 PM
So far it just looks like a difference of opinion between you and Jay LaSuer.


Hain't a difference of opinion or interpretation. It's fact - read the bill.

And I'll take a test of IQ or knowledge of California AW law against LaSeur anyday. Name a time & place.

What political gain was involved for Jay LaSuer?

The usual political vanities: posturing and the appearance of activity & relevance without substance.

He might have gotten some support from GOC which really isn't much (they can help elect a politician to a safe seat).

The district he represented is pretty firmly pro-gun

General progun sentiment does not necessarily mean going into the fine point details like we do here. The broad general gun public is not as analytical as folks are here.

That's the danger: candidates can go 'rah rah rah I'm pro-gun' and get votes yet be POSes in reality, not get anything done, and even cooperate with the antis. That's why we have to hold their feet to the fire, steer them, cajole them - and exact retribution when necessary, even when they're out of office. Pain is a discipline.

And a difference of opinion just doesn’t seem like fraud. If he was told that there would be certain consequences to a bill and he had a difference of opinion, how is that fraud?

[quote]If there is further evidence to show he intended to further erode the rights of Californians, I am interested in hearing it.Again it's simple. He wanted to ban existing hicap magazines already owned, and expose folks to other risks due to constructive possession. A clear read of AB2718 shows this.

And when he was confronted with a legal analysis he barged ahead - and tried to get folks that pointed this out to them (i.e., passing worries on from lawyers) in trouble with Fairfax.

So not only was he against gunrights, he was against property rights too (you'd have to throw away your hicaps!).

I can't say it any more plainly than that: the text of the law speaks more loudly than I can.

DDT
02-17-2009, 12:00 AM
So Bill,

What is the alternative for a pro-CCW sheriff in SD?

bwiese
02-17-2009, 12:35 AM
So Bill,

What is the alternative for a pro-CCW sheriff in SD?

Let's not consider him as a pro-CCW sheriff, in part because he's taken antigun actions while touting himself as progun.

Also, let's not consider LaSeur as a pro-CCW sheriff. To be one, he'd have to win the election - and there's a variety of plain simple nongun politics reasons he won't, even if he could legally sell CCW apps for $500 apiece for campaign money.

I believe some favorable legislative/regulatory activities will be more successful. Development of local candidates that are in the pipeline beyond Gore could be good too.

Alaric
02-17-2009, 1:10 AM
Mr. Wiese is speaking from what appears to be a more macro political view of state politics, where he wants to hold Jay LaSuer accountable for his previous actions in the state legislature. I respect Mr. Weise's opinions and don't challenge the veracity of his statements. What he says does seem to make some sense on a state politics level.

I disagree however about withholding support for Jay in the local San Diego County election for Sheriff. For those of us who live and work in this county Mr. LaSuer offers a very real possibility to elect a decidedly pro-ccw sheriff who may directly and positively impact our day to day gun rights in a very tangible way. To borrow from another politicians campaign slogan, Mr. LaSuer represents, "hope" for pro-ccw gun owners in San Diego County.

The alternative is more of the same: known anti-ccw candidates who we know are hostile to our 2nd Amd. rights. Speaking from a purely tactical/local level, throwing our undivided support behind Jay LaSuer makes the most sense for us and could pay dividends for us in a much more tangible way.

Mr. Wiese suggests support for "local candidates that are in the pipeline beyond Gore". This is the first time in 20 years that we've had a "fair" race for sheriff in this county. For the last 20 years every candidate has had to run against a popularly elected incumbent. Finally, we have a chance to gain a right back, and we're just going to defer it in order to support some potential unnamed sheriffs candidate again running against an incumbent in some future election? I think not.

La Suer has the backing of Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, and his son, 52nd Congressional District candidate Duncan D. Hunter, and state Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Temecula. He is an electable candidate and with our support we can have a real chance to get a pro-CCW sheriff elected in San Diego County.

-hanko
02-17-2009, 4:39 AM
Invite him to the OC extravaganza on Feb. 28.

-hanko

Flintlock Tom
02-17-2009, 5:24 AM
Bill,
Please.
If LaSuer does not win the office, someone who is far less CCW friendly will.
Please allow the residents of San Diego county to elect our own sheriff by not undermining our best chance at "shall issue" CCW.

Please.

7x57
02-17-2009, 9:14 AM
If LaSuer does not win the office, someone who is far less CCW friendly will.
Please allow the residents of San Diego county to elect our own sheriff by not undermining our best chance at "shall issue" CCW.


I guess the question is whether you guys electing la Suer down there is likely to do any harm; otherwise, it's just a question of how much effort for how much improvement. Bill doesn't think it will happen, but it's your time and effort.

The problems Bill reports would be very troubling for a legislator, because there could be more mischief in the future. But I don't see where a sheriff can cause that kind of trouble, and what could be more CCW trouble than what you have? So the question is whether Bill sees problems that aren't obvious.

The general attitude, if this is really a pattern, could be a very bad thing in a Sheriff--but I'm hanged if I see how it is different than a lot of other sheriffs-for-life.

What about it, Bill? Do you see trouble coming that isn't obvious if they manage to elect Jay, or are you just saying don't expect him to be the messiah? (Besides, we already elected haMoshiach as president, not even such a magical being could do another job while he's creating rainbows and love-ins worldwide. :-P )

7x57

motorhead
02-17-2009, 9:29 AM
guys, a moment of clarity please. WHERE T.F. do you get the idea that jay (or anyone) will bring SHALL ISSUE to s.d. county? ca is may issue. he says he supports shall issue on his website. BFD. he might also support repeal of NFA, is it going to happen due to his support? if he were to pledge to accept personal self defense as good cause we'd have the closest thing to shall issue available under current law. he skirts the issue entirely. his website addresses nothing about how he will hadle ccw applications in the REAL world.

motorhead
02-17-2009, 9:41 AM
that being said, jay is still probably the best candidate for the job. hopefully we won't regret it. i can't see things getting worse unless he takes an anti oll position in enforcement. support for any of his opponents would be counterproductive to change here and i've never witheld a vote since i turned 18.

GuyW
02-17-2009, 1:40 PM
I can't believe you are hindering a serious pro-gun candidate. If Jay loses, we'll have more of the elitest policies that we have now, and a bad Sheriff for 25 years...

I've talked with Jay face to face more than once. My judgement is that he's a straight shooter, and that political two-facedness is personally repugnant to him.

Jay is pro-gun, and pro-CCW.

As a San Diegan, I'm asking you to stop.

Jay has made wild promises in the past.

I'm just wondering why Jay wanted to criminalize hicap mag possession in the past (AB2218) and make the AW laws even worse.

Word reached me Jay LaS. told quite a few folks he could get the DOJ to get rid of the AW list(s) as a tradeoff for this. Either that was a wholly fraudulent statement, or it reflects a completely incompetent misunderstanding of CA's AW laws and statutory vs regulatory issues. Incompetence or disingenuity, take your choice.

Given the above, I dunno if I'd believe him regarding CCW policies, since he sure as hell in the past wants to say things people want to hear regardless of facts/ability.

GuyW
02-17-2009, 1:45 PM
Talk about back-stabbing. You're the first to make my ignore list.

.



Well, we have documented behavior - i.e, the existence of introduced legislation - that he wanted to ban hicap mags.

If he says he's pro-gun yet made antigun deal for a quick bout of grandstanding political expediency, how could you believe that POS on anything else gun-related?

Any gun law proposed can never be one step ahead but eight steps backwards.

Remember how other supposedly pro-gun actors gave us the safe handgun lists.





No, he was kept well-informed of the prospective results and warned repeatedly of dangers by Various Right People. He continued to grandstand on the issue.

(The bill's language itself may have been drafted by Sam Paredes of GOC.)



Yup.

It's less about his ability to write a bill than the dishonesty.

At this point it's not about skill & ability it's about fraud. It might be forgivable if it was pure stupidity - but he was repeatedly warned about the bill's dangers.

Backstabbing of CA gunnies for political gain completely deflates *any* claim to being pro-gun.




A significant fraction of folks here would probably be interested in his turncoat background, esp as this law could well have affected them.






I think we need to set an example by kicking his head to the curb for being a backstabber.

Plus, he's not really electable, he doesn't have the numbers/backing/etc.

By contrast, there's far more chance of bumping off OC's Hutchens in the future.

BTW If I'm remembering correctly, I believe you're part of SoCal NRA Members' Council leadership. I suggest you should consult with others in that management chain to separately verify details and whether or not you can formally support a candidate in your role.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 2:09 PM
When someone wants to take my freedoms - hicap mags, criminalizing AWs - then I'm gonna try to take him down.

His actions were worse than I originally thought.

The ideas
(1) that he's electable anyway.
(2) that he'd keep his promises regarding CCW when he
tried to screw us elsewhere

are interesting notions.

There is far better chance of getting Hutchens deposed in OC than getting LaSeur elected and issuing CCWs (which are two separate matters despite promises).

In fact he's making enough drama about CCW that there's a risk he can screw up some other much bigger efforts in that regard.

bulgron
02-17-2009, 2:12 PM
Talk about back-stabbing. You're the first to make my ignore list.

.

Why? He raises interesting points. Rather than put him on 'ignore' can you please explain to those of us who weren't around/paying attention at the time that LaSuer was in the legislature how Bill's take on LaSuer's actions are wrong or misinterpreted?

I don't really have a dog in this fight. That said, as far as I know LaSuer is the best possible candidate for Sheriff in SDC, and I think it would be foolish to get upset about water under the bridge. But maybe Bill has a point. Or maybe you have a point. The only thing I know for sure is if people put Bill on ignore for stating unpopular opinions, the conversation ends, and no one can learn anything.

bulgron
02-17-2009, 2:14 PM
When someone wants to take my freedoms - hicap mags, criminalizing AWs - then I'm gonna try to take him down.

His actions were worse than I originally thought.

The ideas
(1) that he's electable
(2) that he'd keep his promises regarding CCW when he
tried to screw us elsewhere

are interesting notions.

In fact he's making enough drama about CCW that there's a risk he can screw up some other efforts in that regard.

Bill, are you saying that there's a better candidate for Sheriff of San Diego County? At least Jay is publicly supporting CCW. If he gets elected on that platform, that sends a powerful message, even if he doesn't deliver, right?

nicki
02-17-2009, 2:20 PM
Considering there is a Federal Corruption case going on against former sheriff Mike Corona, that fireworks are erupting in Orange county on CCW issues and alot of issues will possibly be coming up in civil rights lawsuits, what goes on in Orange county will spill over into surrounding counties.

Nicki

bwiese
02-17-2009, 2:21 PM
hopefully we won't regret it. i can't see things getting worse unless he takes an anti oll position in enforcement.....

He kinda did that with already with AB2718.

Wonder if he'll toss those folks under the bus given he tried to legislate 'em under the bus.

His record is clear, what he says is irrelevant.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 2:23 PM
Bill, are you saying that there's a better candidate for Sheriff of San Diego County? At least Jay is publicly supporting CCW. If he gets elected on that platform, that sends a powerful message, even if he doesn't deliver, right?

Given the issues we have with other factions (CAFR, old CRPA, GOC) in Sacto sidestepping unity and getting bad laws passed, do you want to reward the participants in those shenanigans with future office for their sellout behavior, or instead kill them dead politically - and make an example so future politicians will note?

I am wondering when Fairfax may update the NRA grading list. Banning hicap mags and codfiying constructive possession for AWs in CA certainly does NOT make an A grade.

If LaSeur were to man up, and say he was wrong about some of his conduct in Assembly, that some of the folks who were pushing him for bad results weren't in the best interests of gun owners, and that he was sorry about trying to get good folks in trouble for specious reasons, he might regain some standing.

CapS
02-17-2009, 2:33 PM
Really, we should be in the business of rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies. What does it take for someone to prove himself our enemy?

It seems to me that sober reflection on a candidate's past record should guide our logical projection of his future actions.

Listening to campaign promises is being an ill-informed voter. Listening to the experts and doing one's own research is being a well-informed one. So far I've heard campaign promises and one expert's opinion. Time to do my research. Oh, wait, I don't live in SD. :-(

Some in this thread seem to keep repeating "But Jay says..." in the same way my two-year-old grandson says "Oooh, something shiny!"

/Cap

GuyW
02-17-2009, 3:00 PM
I am wondering when Fairfax may update the NRA grading list. Banning hicap mags and codfiying constructive possession for AWs in CA certainly does NOT make an A grade.


(yeah, I de-ignored Wiese)

WOW - which establishment Sheriff candidate here in SD has gotten to BWiese, and at what price?

Wiese's diatribes stink of a hidden agenda - one that doesn't support San Diego gun owners and gun activists...

And now the threat about NRA downgrading Jay's A rating, which has the official imprimature of CA NRA because Wiese is tight with the "right folks" which include CAL NRA...

If this occurs, you all can count on a re-ignited "NRA interests' are different than local resident gun activists" threads...

There is _no_ more pro-gun candidate in this race than Jay.

And if there WAS at this relatively late date, all it would do is split the significant-but-not-decisive pro-gun vote, assuring that Kolender's boy Gore wins.

Yeah - like ensuring that an elitist no-CCWs Sheriff is good for San Diego, because of a perceived failure by someone on our side.

This is ****in' incredible...

BTW, I'm still a NRA Lifer and CRPA Lifer...but I'm sure as hell not sure why...
.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 3:11 PM
(yeah, I de-ignored Wiese)

WOW - which establishment Sheriff candidate here in SD has gotten to BWiese, and at what price?

Your ignore status in relation to me is unimportant to me.

If you're accusing me of taking a bribe or something, please say that to my face. I'll pay your airfare up here.

I make plenty of money I don't need to deal with sh*tball pols or their trolls.

I just need to kill off an antigunner running under a false flag who spins Pied Piper tales.


Wiese's diatribe stinks of a hidden agenda, that doesn't support San Diego gun owners...

I have no hidden agenda but I will not support specific San Diegans focused on a specific matter over the greater whole-California good of a long-term better result of not supporting a sellout who promises all sortsa nice things. That long term stance will fix many gun matters in CA.

Sometimes you need to make an example and put the proverbial dead fish in their mailbox.

When Jay was whispering in your ear, you must've gotten a bit of tongue, too.

And now the threat about NRA downgrading Jay's A rating, which has the official imprimature of
CA NRA because Wiese is tight with the "right folks" which include CAL NRA...

That's my speculation, if the delisting were or were not to happen, that happens out of Fairfax, I believe.

I have no idea what'll formally happen, but that list IS kinda old and even a fast read of AB2718 would show how bad it is - it's not just me saying it.

I notice you don't defend AB2718 and dance away from it. How was it good for us, and why wasn't it traitorus?
Why is criminalizing something good? Why would you wanna make more work for CGF and others defending folks?

I notice Jay doesn't have the balls to respond directly.



If this occurs, you all can count on a re-ignited "NRA interests' are different than local resident gun activists" threads...

No, YOU have a SPECIAL INTEREST of getting an antigun candidate elected.

(Or rather, I think you just have blinders on and enjoy the sweet talk.)


There is _no_ more pro-gun candidate in this race than Jay.


Jay sez this, Jay sez that.

Yes, during his assembly term he at least voted pro-gun. That's kinda a default *starting* condition.

But he touts himself the Mega Pro Gun dude and then tries to pass antigun bills, and tries to get NRA employees fired when their legal analysis shows the bill was antigun.


And if there WAS at this relatively late date, all it would do is split the significant-but-not-decisive pro-gun vote, assuring that Kolender's boy Gore wins.

Yeah - like ensuring that an elitist no-CCWs Sheriff is good for San Diego, because of a perceived failure by someone on our side.

This is ****in' incredible...


Your naivete astounds me. Must be part of the Global Warming crowd.

CCW will be fixed in CA thru other means - courts, Sacto, arrests of open carriers who've been denied CCWs, etc.

Arse-kissing someone for a temporary gift, and thus rewarding his past antigun behavior is worse than a Gore candidacy.

As CapS wrote, we need to be in the business of rewarding friends and punishing enemies - esp those who sold us out under our own name.

Understand that LaSeur CANNOT WIN ANYWAY for many other reasons. The numbers/funding just don't work out. There's not that many CCW applicants even in 'near-shall-issue' counties. Even at the peak of Carona, the numbers were small in OC. A true proCCW candidate would probably be smart and not boast about it, either: a quiet word gets passed around and magically things happen.

This reminds me of the Poochigian vs Jerry Brown AG race and when stoopid Pooch brought up the repeal of the 50BMG ban.

Alaric
02-17-2009, 4:08 PM
Bill, would you feel differently on this matter if you lived in San Diego County and had a personal and vested interest in obtaining CCW here?

I understand your wanting to "punish" the candidate who (for whatever reason) you feel betrayed the cause. However, could it be possible that Jay's stated position on CCW is legitimate and not merely campaign rhetoric? Could it also be possible that we're actually doing more harm than good to our cause by not supporting the openly and vociferously pro-CCW candidate here? We're acting like our own worst enemy, as usual.

What good does it really do to withhold support if Jay IS ultimately elected? Jay would possibly just feel betrayed by us and not be the friend to our cause he could be. Other potential pro-CCW candidates would also see us as an ineffectual group that blunders our best chance to support pro-gun candidates.

And if we DO support Jay, at least we have a chance at CCW in SD County. Without that support, Jay is unlikely to built a strong enough base for 2010 and is not likely to win. We'll wind up with Gore and his continuation of the failed Kolender policies of the past.

Bill, I think you've made your point. Personally I think Jay should take the opportunity to respond here and address your concerns. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that his support for AB2718 was misguided in some way, perhaps the result of bad advice given from another pro-2nd faction. Or, perhaps in the spirit of compromise he felt it was the best we could get in the grand scheme of things at the time. I don't know - this is speculation. Whatever the reasons, this thread is beginning to decline into the realm of personal attacks and a fair degree of perceived personal retribution for past slights. That helps us not one bit and only serves to strengthen our opponents.

Jay LaSuer may not be perfect, he is after all a politician, but he is still "our guy" in this race and I will continue to take him at his word for now. To those who would continue to demean his reputation, please either suggest a better candidate in this race or bite the bullet and allow us to get behind the guy who supports our cause.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 4:21 PM
Bill, would you feel differently on this matter if you lived in San Diego County and had a personal and vested interest in obtaining CCW here?

No. That'd be much like DOJ trying to shut me or Hoffman up by giving us AW & SBR permits.



I understand your wanting to "punish" the candidate who (for
whatever reason) you feel betrayed the cause.

Let's watch our wording here. Your phrase "you feel..." makes it sound like I'm nonobjective. An objective read of Ab2718 reveals its antigun nature. Knowing the background that this was pursued further in spite advice is what makes me boil.


However, could it be possible that Jay's stated position
on CCW is legitimate and not merely campaign rhetoric?

Perhaps, but how the hell do we know?
And why do we want to reward an enemy with support?
And do we wanna be bought off with CCW that may only last his candidacy when the next guy drops in the slot? (Jay ain't a spring chicken.)

Furthermore, killing support to an already nonviable candidate is not harming is but still sending the "dead fish in a mailbox" message.


Could it also be possible that we're actually doing more
harm than good to our cause by not supporting the openly and
vociferously pro-CCW candidate here?

Many of our true friends are not vociferous.

We've gotten more favorable forward results from a gay Democrat than we have from Jay.

And our cause should be far greater than single issue (CCW) in a small region.

Remember, most sheriff's elections are won 'internally'. Period. It would have to be extraordinary for a relative outsider to insert himself.

The real process should be identifying/supporting younger deputies as they work their way up the org chart.

People want quick & easy miracles that aren't there.


Bill, I think you've made your point. Personally I think Jay
should take the opportunity to respond here and address your concerns.

He doesn't have the balls.

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that his support for AB2718 was misguided in some way, perhaps the result of bad advice given from another pro-2nd faction.

That was the original take, I know he was GOC's boy. What happened afterward is HE REFUSED ADVICE FROM COMPETENT LEGAL FOLKS on the dangers.

When I see a former cop advocating stuff that could put me in jail, I boil over.

Jay must die politically, so that the future folks that transact with the Kathy Lynches, the Gerry Upholts, etc. will not thrive further - and better yet, won't transact with them at all.

CoinStar
02-17-2009, 4:43 PM
A note to fellow San Diegans:

The value of a vote cast from Santa Clara county for an upcoming sheriff election in San Diego county is exactly nil (plus or minus a few 'nothings').

There is no better candidate for this position than Jay.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 4:46 PM
A note to fellow San Diegans:

The value of a vote cast from Santa Clara county for an upcoming sheriff election in San Diego county is exactly nil (plus or minus a few 'nothings').

There is no better candidate for this position than Jay.


The value of a San Diego vote compromising for a possible short term result (assuming win, assuming follow-thru) hurts all California gunnies.

Alaric
02-17-2009, 4:48 PM
No. That'd be much like DOJ trying to shut me or Hoffman up by giving us AW & SBR permits.

All politics is local. It sounds like you're asking San Diego County voters to sacrifice their opportunity to gain a pro-ccw Sheriff in order to support a narrow and vindictive policy of retribution to send a message. That message is not likely to matter to most politicians in this state since most are liberal anti-ccw'ers anyway.

Let's watch our wording here. Your phrase "you feel..." makes it sound like I'm nonobjective. An objective read of Ab2718 reveals its antigun nature. Knowing the background that this was pursued further in spite advice is what makes me boil.

I don't mean to imply that you're non-objective, but it does sound like a policy of vindication/retribution you're advocating. You stated yourself in post #50 that if he "manned up" you might support him, right?

Perhaps, but how the hell do we know?
And why do we want to reward an enemy with support?
And do we wanna be bought off with CCW that may only last his candidacy when the next guy drops in the slot? (Jay ain't a spring chicken.)

A possible friend with a shaky past is better than a sworn enemy in office.

Furthermore, killing support to an already nonviable candidate is not harming is but still sending the "dead fish in a mailbox" message.

Please feel free to explain why he's so "nonviable". As I stated in an earlier post, "La Suer has the backing of Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, and his son, 52nd Congressional District candidate Duncan D. Hunter, and state Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Temecula. He is an electable candidate and with our support we can have a real chance to get a pro-CCW sheriff elected in San Diego County."

Many of our true friends are not vociferous.

We've gotten more favorable forward results from a gay Democrat than we have from Jay.

And our cause should be far greater than single issue (CCW) in a small region.

San Diego is the second largest city in California (behind LA) and should not be dismissed as a "small region" IMHO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_California_(by_population)

Remember, most sheriff's elections are won 'internally'. Period. It would have to be extraordinary for a relative outsider to insert himself.

Jay was a member of the Sheriff's department and all three candidates have acknowledged that they are all viable and strong candidates. Jay does not enjoy the backing of the current Sheriff, but with his formidable political history and backers mentioned above this should not be too much of a problem.

That was the original take, I know he was GOC's boy. What happened afterward is HE REFUSED ADVICE FROM COMPETENT LEGAL FOLKS on the dangers.

When I see a former cop advocating stuff that could put me in jail, I boil over.

Jay must die politically, so that the future folks that transact with the Kathy Lynches, the Gerry Upholts, etc. will not thrive further - and better yet, won't transact with them at all.

Again, who is likely to get and heed this message? Is this about supporting our cause or about sending a message that is likely to go unnoticed?


Does anyone know a pro-ccw deputy in the SD County Sheriff's Dept. with political aspirations who we can support sometime in the next 16-20 years? Personally, I don't want to wait that long.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 4:49 PM
Does anyone know a pro-ccw deputy in the SD County Sheriff's Dept. with political aspirations who we can support sometime in the next 16-20 years? Personally, I don't want to wait that long.

Who says it'll take that long, or that a sheriff approval will be required for CCW?

;)

Alaric
02-17-2009, 4:53 PM
Who says it'll take that long, or that a sheriff approval will be required for CCW?

;)

I sincerely hope you are right sir, but I am unwilling to take that risk. Jay is still my best hope for protecting myself, my family and my property with a rational CCW policy as long as I live in SD County.

CoinStar
02-17-2009, 5:00 PM
The value of a San Diego vote compromising for a possible short term result (assuming win, assuming follow-thru) hurts all California gunnies.

How is that? His role as sheriff won't affect you one bit (unless San Diego county annexes San Jose... just as I told you the last time you tried to derail our efforts regarding La Suer).

It's time for you to let go of a few of these demons that haunt you, Bill. Last I looked, AB2781 was dead and gone. You've beaten the horse to a pulp.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 5:09 PM
It's time for you to let go of a few of these demons that haunt you, Bill.
Last I looked, AB2781 was dead and gone. You've beaten the horse to a pulp.

The Rosenbergs sold the atomic bomb stuff to the Russians only once.

We shouldn't have executed them?

We should have pardoned them?


LaSeur voted to take away my hicap magazines, and ban aspects of OLLs. Period.

With LaSeur's actions the OLL revolution wouldn't have happened and the DOJ Firearms body would still be a Division, not a Bureau.

There would've been no AB2728.

Many more people would be in jail for AW violations.

But I guess we know what people will sell out for... just need to fix the price.

CoinStar
02-17-2009, 5:13 PM
The Rosenbergs sold the atomic bomb stuff to the Russians only once.

We shouldn't have executed them?

So you're going to continue to attempt to derail our efforts with strawmen too? Is that what I'm reading?

Feel free to not vote for LaSuer when you get your ballot -- oh wait...

Flintlock Tom
02-17-2009, 5:15 PM
Bill,
Please, I'm begging you. You've make your point. We've heard your point. We understand your point. We are now fully informed voters.
Now, please, leave us alone and let us elect OUR choice for sheriff.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 5:17 PM
So you're going to continue to attempt to derail our efforts with strawmen too? Is that what I'm reading?

Merely a parallel example of traitorous action.

I don't want to see politically unaware San Diego gunnies sell out the rest of the state.

It's really all moot, because he's a nonwinner anyway. So it's less damaging to your 'cause'.

BTW His list of sponsors doesn't translate into votes.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 5:19 PM
Bill,
Please, I'm begging you. You've make your point. We've heard your point. We understand your point. We are now fully informed voters.
Now, please, leave us alone and let us elect OUR choice for sheriff.

Not when you are trying to f*ck the rest of the state and get in the way of statewide strategy. We've had enough screwups paving their own way for profit or self-aggrandizement.

Call me when you have a winning candidate anyway. "Tent jails" really don't appeal to more than a fringe element - esp with some scandals emerging concerning his god, Joe Arpaio.

CoinStar
02-17-2009, 5:27 PM
Bill,

When you get your ballot, don't vote for him. It's that simple. People have asked you very respectfully to can it. Perhaps show a bit of respect for fellow gunnies who do actually have a stake in this election?

bwiese
02-17-2009, 5:30 PM
Bill,

When you get your ballot, don't vote for him. It's that simple. People have asked you very respectfully to can it. Perhaps show a bit of respect for fellow gunnies who do actually have a stake in this election?

I don't respect idiotic blind support of traitors.

Maybe Jay should have had respect for me and many hundreds of thousands of other Californians that own hicap mags, AWs, and relevant non-AWs back in 2004 (plus all the 120K new OLL folks).

The count of the people he could have affected is likely much greater than the number of people that will vote for him for SD Sheriff.

Axewound
02-17-2009, 5:31 PM
i think we should invite him to a SD shoot and get him on the record and expalin any questions...really i just wanna say i shot with him and got to meet him

FeuerFrei
02-17-2009, 5:44 PM
I think CCW should be every legal citizen's right as per constitution.
When we begin to water down people's rights we get stuck in details that lend themselves to thinking about what we will predict a citizen will do in the future.
Lets assume that all people are innocent until they do something illegal, get convicted in a court of law and do time for it. Then we can in good conscious deny them legal access to firearms.

CoinStar
02-17-2009, 5:50 PM
The count of the people he could have affected...

"Could have" has absolutely no relevance in the upcoming election. Thank you for proving what I was saying. His position as sheriff in San Diego county will not affect you in any way imaginable no matter how you want to spin this.

As sheriff, he won't be able to cause you any more of that "could have" sort of harm. That alone should be cause for you to support his campaign.

Kestryll
02-17-2009, 5:52 PM
I don't care who you support or don't support, tone it down NOW.

ar15barrels
02-17-2009, 7:11 PM
Did Bill get banned in here?

Alaric
02-17-2009, 7:24 PM
Did Bill get banned in here?

It would appear that way.

If only we could all set the infighting aside occasionally to support candidates who are on our side, we would be unstoppable.

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 7:26 PM
So Sheriff Jay,

Why did you draft, carry, and sponsor a bill that would have banned the possession of large-capacity magazines by anyone with a semiautomatic rifle?

As proposed:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon"
shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a detachable magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds and any one of the following:


-Gene

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 7:27 PM
If only we could all set the infighting aside occasionally to support candidates who are on our side, we would be unstoppable.

I'd like to understand how he's on my side?

-Gene

ar15barrels
02-17-2009, 7:31 PM
Damn, Bill called in for backup from jail.

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 7:35 PM
Damn, Bill called in for backup from jail.

Heh.

The way it looks to me is this. There are two and only two explanations.

1. Jay LaSuer did something anti-gun for whatever reason.

2. Jay's defenders' best defense to that is that he's not competent on gun matters.

I think his supporters should have their eyes open too. Dunno if that's backup, but that's what it looks like to me.

-Gene

ar15barrels
02-17-2009, 7:39 PM
Heh.

The way it looks to me is this. There are two and only two explanations.

1. Jay LaSuer did something anti-gun for whatever reason.

2. Jay's defenders' best defense to that is that he's not competent on gun matters.

I think his supporters should have their eyes open too. Dunno if that's backup, but that's what it looks like to me.

-Gene

I only came in here because I saw Bill got banned and this is where his last post on record was made.
Just wanted to see what the hubbub was about...

Kestryll
02-17-2009, 7:45 PM
Ask the questions but if it goes down the road Bill took it will end the same.

NO ONE is exempt.

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 7:46 PM
NO ONE is exempt.

Except one...

-Gene

Alaric
02-17-2009, 8:03 PM
So Sheriff Jay,

Why did you draft, carry, and sponsor a bill that would have banned the possession of large-capacity magazines by anyone with a semiautomatic rifle?

As proposed:


-Gene

I'd like to hear Mr. LaSuer's response to this as well.

Heh.

The way it looks to me is this. There are two and only two explanations.

1. Jay LaSuer did something anti-gun for whatever reason.

2. Jay's defenders' best defense to that is that he's not competent on gun matters.

I think his supporters should have their eyes open too. Dunno if that's backup, but that's what it looks like to me.

-Gene

I don't recall anyone suggesting Mr. LaSuer is "incompetent" in gun matters. As I stated in post #54, "Personally I think Jay should take the opportunity to respond here and address your concerns. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that his support for AB2718 was misguided in some way, perhaps the result of bad advice given from another pro-2nd faction. Or, perhaps in the spirit of compromise he felt it was the best we could get in the grand scheme of things at the time. I don't know - this is speculation. Whatever the reasons, this thread is beginning to decline into the realm of personal attacks and a fair degree of perceived personal retribution for past slights. That helps us not one bit and only serves to strengthen our opponents."

If this is any indication of how gun owners unite behind their candidate, we've got a long ways to go in this state. Mr. LaSuer is likely far from perfect, but he is by far the best candidate we have for SD County Sheriff in 2010. Unless, of course, you'd care to suggest someone better Mr. Hoffman.

ar15barrels
02-17-2009, 8:16 PM
If this is any indication of how gun owners unite behind their candidate, we've got a long ways to go in this state. Mr. LaSuer is likely far from perfect, but he is by far the best candidate we have for SD County Sheriff in 2010. Unless, of course, you'd care to suggest someone better Mr. Hoffman.

hoffmanng for Sheriff! :thumbsup:

5150Marcelo
02-17-2009, 8:17 PM
Ask the questions but if it goes down the road Bill took it will end the same.

NO ONE is exempt.

Except one...

-Gene

Im right here!:D:thumbsup:

Doheny
02-17-2009, 8:29 PM
Not very clear what you're getting at...

Or, I'm dumb. It's been known to happen.

Or a nine-choice poll is confusing...

Alaric
02-17-2009, 8:40 PM
hoffmanng for Sheriff! :thumbsup:

Seems to me that Mr. Hoffman, like Mr. Wiese, is another resident of the bay area criticizing our best hope for CCW in San Diego County. I humbly invite both of you gentleman to become residents of San Diego County so you may obtain a bit more of a vested interest in that which you appear to be so quick to dismiss. Land is cheap here; as a former resident of the bay area I can say that. Also Calgunners are plentiful in these parts. With a population nearly four times the size of San Francisco County, we are far from being an irrelevant backwater in this state. Electing a pro-ccw Joe Arpaio-esque Sheriff here would go a long ways to make a powerful statement to the anti's in this state and beyond. A strong turnout of Calgunners to support him could make all the difference and enable further empowerment on other political fronts.

ar15barrels
02-17-2009, 8:46 PM
I humbly invite both of you gentleman to become residents of San Diego County

I like passing through SD county on my way to mexico, but I have no stake in this fight beyond raising my post count. :thumbsup:

5150Marcelo
02-17-2009, 8:56 PM
I like passing through SD county on my way to mexico, but I have no stake in this fight beyond raising my post count. :thumbsup:

Geez, just when you couldnt get anymore mexican, you take trips to visit the motherland. Nice! Invite next time guey. We'll do lobster in Puerto Nuevo!:thumbsup:

kermit315
02-17-2009, 8:56 PM
I think they raise valid points. If somebody is running as a pro gun candidate, and has done things on record to disprove that, why should it not be brought up, just because people dont live there?

Whether you like it or not (not directed at anybody specific), what happens in any one county in this state tends to have a ripple effect throughout the rest of the state. I would say that gives everybody in this state a vested interest in what happens elsewhere, especially those on a gun board when the subject is a person running for an office on a pro gun platform, when that person has been proven to be at the very least confused on the subject.

ar15barrels
02-17-2009, 8:58 PM
Geez, just when you couldnt get anymore mexican, you take trips to visit the motherland. Nice! Invite next time guey. We'll do lobster in Puerto Nuevo!:thumbsup:

You know we have a beach house south of san felipe right?

eaglemike
02-17-2009, 9:02 PM
Another approach might be to contact LaSuer in a positive way, and seek clarification of his current position. Perhaps his position has changed. One can hope.

all the best,

Mike

USN CHIEF
02-17-2009, 9:04 PM
OMFG, what in the world is going on in Cal Guns today, I have been real busy reloading and ya'll got Bill Banned and freaking Randall is whoring for Hoffmang and Marcelo is trying to get on Kests' good side, Seriously a big WTF? :eek::D

ar15barrels
02-17-2009, 9:04 PM
Another approach might be to contact LaSuer in a positive way, and seek clarification of his current position.
Perhaps his position has changed.

A changing position is a scary thing in any politician.

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 9:05 PM
Seems to me that Mr. Hoffman, like Mr. Wiese, is another resident of the bay area criticizing our best hope for CCW in San Diego County. I humbly invite both of you gentleman to become residents of San Diego County so you may obtain a bit more of a vested interest in that which you appear to be so quick to dismiss.

We live in places that have even less hope and we choose to fight here.

I sense that you and Jay would like our support for his candidacy. Are you telling me that he asks for nothing from any resident not in San Diego County?

In that case I guess only San Deigans should require answers to the questions I pose about his demonstrably non pro-gun activities in Sacramento.

However, when Jay represented me in Sacramento it looks like he almost cost me the OLL revolution and all my large capacity magazines. That's a pretty expensive "oops" you'd like Bill and me to overlook.

-Gene

USN CHIEF
02-17-2009, 9:09 PM
A changing position is a scary thing in any politician.

Randall, quit stirring the pot:D

To be honest with you, not sure if I can vote for Mr. Lasuer but he has my support and I will be whoring around for him to get more gun owners to vote for him here in SD County.

CavTrooper
02-17-2009, 9:09 PM
Would donating to the Obama campaign be considered anti-gun activities?

No ones hands are clean here.

:thumbsup:

eaglemike
02-17-2009, 9:12 PM
A changing position is a scary thing in any politician.

I dunno... I've learned a few things in life, and it's changed my views once or twice. I'd hope that could be considered an asset. Has this ever happened to you? :)
all the best,
Mike

Alaric
02-17-2009, 9:13 PM
I think they raise valid points. If somebody is running as a pro gun candidate, and has done things on record to disprove that, why should it not be brought up, just because people dont live there?

Whether you like it or not (not directed at anybody specific), what happens in any one county in this state tends to have a ripple effect throughout the rest of the state. I would say that gives everybody in this state a vested interest in what happens elsewhere, especially those on a gun board when the subject is a person running for an office on a pro gun platform, when that person has been proven to be at the very least confused on the subject.

Two words: political expedience.

I agree that these issues should be brought up, and discussed. We discussed in circles until we were blue in the face and people began to lose it.

What I take issue with is trying to take down a candidate that (despite his shortcomings) is still the best candidate in a local race, without a viable alternative. Not doing that based on his positions on the issues mind you, but rather on a personal quest to exact retribution for a past political slight. Screwing over the citizens of San Diego so a couple of provincial bay area egos patriots can feel better about themselves will not go unchallenged no matter how epic they are on this forum - I will call you on it.

:inquis:

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 9:14 PM
Would donating to the Obama campaign be considered anti-gun activities?

No ones hands are clean here.


Yep, my $500 in 2007 before I knew he was on the board of Joyce is just like sponsoring a bill in Sacramento to ban large-capacity magazines.

I immediately responded then and now. I look forward to Sheriff Jay's response.

-Gene

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 9:16 PM
so a couple of provincial bay area egos patriots can feel better about themselves

Why do you assume it's only two guys from the Bay Area that have this concern? Awfully convenient positioning on your part. There would be no one in Sacramento, Fresno, LA, or San Diego that might want these questions answered also? Sure that's the case?

-Gene

Alaric
02-17-2009, 9:17 PM
OMFG, what in the world is going on in Cal Guns today, I have been real busy reloading and ya'll got Bill Banned and freaking Randall is whoring for Hoffmang and Marcelo is trying to get on Kests' good side, Seriously a big WTF? :eek::D

:rofl: Thanks Chief, that's the best only laugh I've had all day.

Alaric
02-17-2009, 9:22 PM
Why do you assume it's only two guys from the Bay Area that have this concern? Awfully convenient positioning on your part. There would be no one in Sacramento, Fresno, LA, or San Diego that might want these questions answered also? Sure that's the case?

-Gene

I've already said that I'd like to hear Jay's response as well. Let's not be so quick to hang him out to dry without so much as a response or a viable alternative though.

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 9:23 PM
I've already said that I'd like to hear Jay's response as well. Let's not be so quick to hang him out to dry without so much as a response or a viable alternative though.

Then I'd suggest you keep your maligning of folks to yourself instead of labeling me as a "provincial bay area ego."

It doesn't make me happy that Jay LaSuer sponsored demonstrably anti-gun legislation... I don't know why you'd think it would.

-Gene

DedEye
02-17-2009, 9:23 PM
I've already said that I'd like to hear Jay's response as well. Let's not be so quick to hang him out to dry without so much as a response or a viable alternative though.

Viable alternative implies that Jay LaSeur is a viable candidate, doesn't it? Sorta like Ron Paul, right?

5150Marcelo
02-17-2009, 9:25 PM
You know we have a beach house south of san felipe right?

Thats right huh! Im headed out there in April. Lets go!

5150Marcelo
02-17-2009, 9:27 PM
OMFG, what in the world is going on in Cal Guns today, I have been real busy reloading and ya'll got Bill Banned and freaking Randall is whoring for Hoffmang and Marcelo is trying to get on Kests' good side, Seriously a big WTF? :eek::D

No mames guey. Me and Kest go wayyyyy back. Now calmate before I have him ban you! :43:

Alaric
02-17-2009, 9:34 PM
Then I'd suggest you keep your maligning of folks to yourself instead of labeling me as a "provincial bay area ego."

It doesn't make me happy that Jay LaSuer sponsored demonstrably anti-gun legislation... I don't know why you'd think it would.

-Gene

Not a big fan of the right to vote or the first amendment are you?

OK, I'm willing to compromise. You keep your nose out of my CCW rights in San Diego and I'll try not to bruise your ego any further. Unless you want me to tell you how to vote for your local candidates in a public forum.

This entire thread has become one long campaign to discredit a pro-ccw candidate. What possible service does this serve in a local race.

USN CHIEF
02-17-2009, 9:35 PM
No mames guey. Me and Kest go wayyyyy back. Now calmate before I have him ban you! :43:

Ay no mames tu guey...:D Did not know you had it like that guey, no wonder you did not call me on Saturday (Valentine's day).:p

But, seriously, can't we just get along without getting physical? LOL.

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 9:38 PM
This entire thread has become one long campaign to discredit a pro-ccw candidate. What possible service does this serve in a local race.

Though I await Sheriff Jay's response I ask this in the short run:

Why should the pro gun community support someone who did something demonstrably antigun or was too unaware of the issues to not do something antigun?

I don't have an ego in this. I have the desire to keep politicians honest. I would really have preferred that Jay not have introduced AB 2218 and then I'd happily support him.

Why are you giving him a pass?

-Gene

7x57
02-17-2009, 9:39 PM
Why do you assume it's only two guys from the Bay Area that have this concern? Awfully convenient positioning on your part. There would be no one in Sacramento, Fresno, LA, or San Diego that might want these questions answered also? Sure that's the case?

-Gene

Fine. This thread seems somewhat radioactive, but I'm like a moth to a candle flame. I'm in LA county and I'm not terribly pleased to find out the sorts of bills he backed. But I'm *more* disturbed that he could not be reasoned with.

I'm not convinced how much damage he can do in SDSD, but the issues raised are serious and troubling. They should not be dismissed, as quite a few are doing. Unity is a good thing. But unity does not mean telling everyone else to do it your way and shut up.

That said--the case also needs to be made as to how much of his legislative career should be held against him in a non-legislative position. However, we expect a sheriff to understand guns much better than our typical Sacramento legislators, and not a lot of understanding has been shown. It might be worth discussing how his style and behavior might affect how he enforces gun laws--being sheriff isn't just about issuing CCWs. What happens if he is CCW friendly but semiauto carbine hostile? That wouldn't be fun.

I can't vote in the election and won't send money to the campaign, so in a sense I have no dog in this fight, but if I did the person I'd like to talk to about it is Ed Worley. I trust his opinions on realpolitik (that is not meant to imply that I don't trust the opinions of anyone else in particular), particularly anything related to Sacramento and it's native wildlife.

7x57

DedEye
02-17-2009, 9:39 PM
Not a big fan of the right to vote or the first amendment are you?

Dunno, seems like you're the one complaining about him exercising his freedom of speech to tell you what's wrong with your candidate of choice.

OK, I'm willing to compromise. You keep your nose out of my CCW rights in San Diego and I'll try not to bruise your ego any further. Unless you want me to tell you how to vote for your local candidates in a public forum.

You can tell him, just like he can tell you; doesn't mean it's going to change your opinions. It may sway some of the fence sitters though, which is far more important than someone deeply entrenched in their position.

This entire thread has become one long campaign to discredit a pro-ccw candidate. What possible service does this serve in a local race.

Do you really not understand how a local politician can have a lasting negative impact on statewide issues? Do you really not see the evidence of how he nearly did just that in the past, and how he has the potential to do it again in the future?

This thread is a great service to local and statewide supporters because it ensures that people get as much info as possible before giving support to a candidate who may not have their best interests at heart. Just because it's not going the way you wanted doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Alaric
02-17-2009, 9:45 PM
Though I await Sheriff Jay's response I ask this in the short run:

Why should the pro gun community support someone who did something demonstrably antigun or was too unaware of the issues to not do something antigun?

I don't have an ego in this. I have the desire to keep politicians honest. I would really have preferred that Jay not have introduced AB 2218 and then I'd happily support him.

Why are you giving him a pass?

-Gene

Again, two words: political expediency.

Despite his colored history introducing AB2218, he's still our best hope for ccw here.

sorensen440
02-17-2009, 9:46 PM
I was wondering how do his opponents line up as far as the 2a ?

DedEye
02-17-2009, 9:48 PM
Again, two words: political expediency.

Despite his colored history introducing AB2218, he's still our best hope for ccw here.

As people keep repeating, over and over and over:

At what cost?

I was wondering how do his opponents line up as far as the 2a ?

Not well.

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 9:49 PM
Again, two words: political expediency.

Despite his colored history introducing AB2218, he's still our best hope for ccw here.

Political expediency is a two way street. Are you sure it's a long term good strategy to give legislators who sponsor anti gun bills a pass when they come back to you and promise to be pro-gun this time?

-Gene

5150Marcelo
02-17-2009, 9:53 PM
Ay no mames tu guey...:D Did not know you had it like that guey, no wonder you did not call me on Saturday (Valentine's day).:p

But, seriously, can't we just get along without getting physical? LOL.

No mames! Is that an invite for a date?????:eek:

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 9:55 PM
I was wondering how do his opponents line up as far as the 2a ?

Are we sure we know who his competition will be?

-Gene

sorensen440
02-17-2009, 9:56 PM
Are we sure we know who his competition will be?

-Gene
I have no idea but if he is the best we can get then so be it

Alaric
02-17-2009, 9:58 PM
Do you really not understand how a local politician can have a lasting negative impact on statewide issues? Do you really not see the evidence of how he nearly did just that in the past, and how he has the potential to do it again in the future?

This thread is a great service to local and statewide supporters because it ensures that people get as much info as possible before giving support to a candidate who may not have their best interests at heart. Just because it's not going the way you wanted doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Jay LaSuer is 68 years old (referenced here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080713/news_1m13sheriff.html). By the time he takes office in 2011 (if he gets elected), his tenure as sheriff will likely last one term.

He will not be introducing legislation as Sheriff (not a legislator), and he will likely be past building another foundation for a run for the legislature at that age. What is the big concern, "for the state"? That's a complete non-starter.

As for his overall policies besides CCW, like building tent jails and running inmate work crews, what specifically concerns you? I'm pleased with his platform and want to see these policies implemented. These will not have a direct effect outside San Diego County, unless other Sheriffs follow his lead.

DDT
02-17-2009, 10:01 PM
Political expediency is a two way street. Are you sure it's a long term good strategy to give legislators who sponsor anti gun bills a pass when they come back to you and promise to be pro-gun this time?

-Gene

Seemed to work for Robert Byrd.

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 10:05 PM
He will not be introducing legislation as Sheriff (not a legislator), and he will likely be past building another foundation for a run for the legislature at that age. What is the big concern, "for the state"? That's a complete non-starter.


I have no question that he introduced AB 2218. It's historical fact.

We have one and only one way to demand the right type of legislation from folks supposedly on our side. It looks to me like he introduced an anti gun bill when he was a legislator. After nearly severely hurting every gun owner in the state, he'd like gun owner's support for sheriff.

If we allow politicians to screw us without consequences when they might be the lesser of all evils, what sorts of support will we end up with from the supposedly pro-gun?

Hint: Incentives matter. You're incenting current supposedly pro-gun legislators to not be all that pro-gun because once they get termed out, we'll just bend over and support them for sheriff too! All they have to do is look at what Jay did and is doing to see that there is no cost for selling gun owners down a river...

-Gene

Alaric
02-17-2009, 10:05 PM
Are we sure we know who his competition will be?


Gore and Duffy are LaSuer's opponents.

Gore is the likely strongest opponent for LaSuer. Gore has a stated position of continuing the anti-ccw issuance policies of his predecessor Sheriff Kolender. Duffy is likewise unfriendly to change. San Diego is a very conservative county, and not always in a good way.

As stated before, this is the first election without an incumbent candidate in 20 years in San Diego County, and hence, our first opportunity to throw off the shackles of anti-ccw tyranny in 20 years.

DedEye
02-17-2009, 10:07 PM
Jay LaSuer is 68 years old (referenced here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080713/news_1m13sheriff.html). By the time he takes office in 2011 (if he gets elected), his tenure as sheriff will likely last one term.

He will not be introducing legislation as Sheriff (not a legislator), and he will likely be past building another foundation for a run for the legislature at that age. What is the big concern, "for the state"? That's a complete non-starter.

As for his overall policies besides CCW, like building tent jails and running inmate work crews, what specifically concerns you? I'm pleased with his platform and want to see these policies implemented. These will not have a direct effect outside San Diego County, unless other Sheriffs follow his lead.

I don't particularly care about tent jails or work crews, I worry about what his stated CCW policy could do for the broader efforts to get shall-issue CCW in this state, as well as what his other gun related policies are.

Concern for an over-arching strategy is not a "non-starter." Let me break it down simply for you: If he starts agitating for his shall-issue CCW, then ends up adopting an approach based on favoritism similar to Corona, anti's will have a pattern to point to in order to claim that CCWs need to be even further restricted in this state.

There IS a strategy to bring Shall Issue to California. I don't know most of the details, but I do know it exists and is being implemented by people I trust. People with proven track records of successful advocacy on behalf of gun owners' rights. Jay LaSeur is not one of those people.

Since you're a fan of Jay's other policies, could you please elaborate on what his stance is regarding off list lowers, and specifically the use of Bullet Buttons to render California compliance? Has he stated anything contrary to his previous actions in the legislature in support of bills that would have all but killed off list lowers? I haven't heard anything one way or the other on this and would like to know if he's gone into detail on the matter at all.

Alaric
02-17-2009, 10:25 PM
I don't particularly care about tent jails or work crews, I worry about what his stated CCW policy could do for the broader efforts to get shall-issue CCW in this state, as well as what his other gun related policies are.

Concern for an over-arching strategy is not a "non-starter." Let me break it down simply for you: If he starts agitating for his shall-issue CCW, then ends up adopting an approach based on favoritism similar to Corona, anti's will have a pattern to point to in order to claim that CCWs need to be even further restricted in this state.

Corona was a criminal. What he did went way beyond his ccw policy. Let's not start making specious comparisons now, but if we are going to compare apples to oranges let's ask if the ccw issuance policies of Sheriffs who issue only to elites and politicians are any less criminal. Liberalizing CCW issuance can't be a bad thing as long as the policy used to vet candidates is fair, legal, attainable and applied without prejudice.

There IS a strategy to bring Shall Issue to California. I don't know most of the details, but I do know it exists and is being implemented by people I trust. People with proven track records of successful advocacy on behalf of gun owners' rights. Jay LaSeur is not one of those people.

As Sheriff, he wouldn't have to be an advocate. I think you guys are still confusing the role of Sheriff with that of Legislator.

Since you're a fan of Jay's other policies, could you please elaborate on what his stance is regarding off list lowers, and specifically the use of Bullet Buttons to render California compliance? Has he stated anything contrary to his previous actions in the legislature in support of bills that would have all but killed off list lowers? I haven't heard anything one way or the other on this and would like to know if he's gone into detail on the matter at all.

I'm not here to speak on Mr. laSuer's behalf. I've never met the man. I know what I know of him from the media, from his website, and from CG. From what I've read, I think he's the best candidate to be my next Sheriff.

Personally, I'd like to hear Mr. LaSuer respond in his own words in this thread. I wouldn't blame him for ignoring it altogether though what with all the pitchforks, tar and feathers in apparent abundance tonight. :eek:

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 10:29 PM
I wouldn't blame him for ignoring it altogether though what with all the pitchforks, tar and feathers in apparent abundance tonight. :eek:

I think silence would be quite damaging actually. As is often said, it's not the crime, it's the cover up that will get you...

-Gene

Alaric
02-17-2009, 10:43 PM
Incentives matter. You're incenting current supposedly pro-gun legislators to not be all that pro-gun because once they get termed out, we'll just bend over and support them for sheriff too! All they have to do is look at what Jay did and is doing to see that there is no cost for selling gun owners down a river...

That's why they call it politics, it's the oldest profession. :devil2:

Your friend today might be your worst enemy tomorrow. It's Machiavellian, cutthroat, intensely cynical and prone to corruption in every way. Oftentimes it's about choosing the lesser of two (in this case three) evils. Jay LaSuer is offering a liberalized ccw-issuance policy to his future constituents. He has the backing of other major local politicians. He is running on this policy as the most visible policy change offered in his campaign platform, and it's not an unrisky or uncontroversial platform to be running on. If he get's elected, I believe that he will follow through with liberalizing ccw issuance to the extent he can.

Let me ask you this, is Jay LaSuer any worse than George Bush Sr. promising "no new taxes" in his Presidential campaign, then raising taxes? Did you vote for Clinton instead of Bush Sr. because of that?

hoffmang
02-17-2009, 11:00 PM
Raising taxes doesn't violate the bill of rights.

If you're ok with legislators bending you over and then coming back with their hand out for donations, well, I know who to call whenever I need an undeserved handout.

I look forward to Sheriff Jay's explanation of AB 2218.

-Gene

Flintlock Tom
02-18-2009, 5:18 AM
I look forward to Sheriff Jay's explanation of AB 2218.

-Gene

I don't believe you.
I think your mind is closed on this.
No matter what LaSuer says in his defense, you will write off as "more lies".

Flintlock Tom
02-18-2009, 7:14 AM
Wait. AB2218? (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html)
This is the reason for all the vitriolic head-hunting?!

I went and read the bill. I read it 3 times to make sure I understood it.
If passed it would have changed the definition, in California, of an "assault weapon". Every firearm, rifle and pistol, on the CA "Banned assault weapons" list would have been legal to own in California. No bullet button, no P50 device, nothing. It simply removes the "capacity to receive" language and adds that it is only an "assault weapon" if it HAS a >10 round capacity magazine. If it doesn't have a +10 round mag, it is not an assault weapon. Period.
And you're calling this "anti-gun"?
You're talking as if this was a blatant attack on gun owners, when, in fact, it would have made available everything on the banned list, unmodified.

I would have voted for this in a heart-beat.

bulgron
02-18-2009, 7:19 AM
I don't believe you.
I think your mind is closed on this.
No matter what LaSuer says in his defense, you will write off as "more lies".

Yeah, I'm usually on board with Gene's and Bill's opinions, but I'm struggling with this one.

If there was another viable, pro-CCW sheriff candidate in that race I could maybe understand their position. But there isn't one (that I know of). Do they want SD residents to vote for an openly anti-CCW candidate just because LaSuer once pushed forward a bill that Gene and Bill didn't like?

DedEye
02-18-2009, 7:36 AM
Wait. AB2218? (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html)
This is the reason for all the vitriolic head-hunting?!

I went and read the bill. I read it 3 times to make sure I understood it.
If passed it would have changed the definition, in California, of an "assault weapon". Every firearm, rifle and pistol, on the CA "Banned assault weapons" list would have been legal to own in California. No bullet button, no P50 device, nothing. It simply removes the "capacity to receive" language and adds that it is only an "assault weapon" if it HAS a >10 round capacity magazine. If it doesn't have a +10 round mag, it is not an assault weapon. Period.
And you're calling this "anti-gun"?
You're talking as if this was a blatant attack on gun owners, when, in fact, it would have made available everything on the banned list, unmodified.

I would have voted for this in a heart-beat.

:rolleyes: Perhaps you should have read it four times. It's a good thing you weren't in a position to vote for it then.

Let's see if we can figure out what you don't understand.

This bill would recast those definitions to include the additional
requirement that the firearms are equipped with a magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds or when both the firearm and a
large-capacity magazine are in the immediate possession of the same
person.
Existing law defines certain firearms as "assault weapons" based
on specified characteristics of the firearms.
This bill would recast those definitions to include the additional
requirement that the firearms have the capacity to accept more than
10 rounds.

Did the bolded sections clear things up for you? You talk about how there would be no Prince50 and no Bullet Button, and you're right. With the wording of the law as it was proposed in 2218, neither of those devices would have been relevant or rendered California compliance. You say "everything on the list would have been available, unmodified" without realizing that the exact opposite is true. There would no longer be a list, but everything that is or was on the list would have to be modified.

Capacity to accept is a far, FAR worse definition than capacity to detach. This has been hashed out dozens of times.

Additionally, did you completely miss all the references to constructive possession?

Do you even know what that concept is?

Do you understand that with the wording of this bill, owning an AR with "capacity to accept" and magazines greater than ten rounds would mean you have an assault weapon? Do you not see how this is a problem for the hundreds of thousands of California residents who have magazines greater than ten rounds?

I'm guessing you don't own any of those magazines, and are perfectly willing to sell everyone else up the river as a result. If I'm wrong, I shall stand corrected and apologize. If I'm not, then you've lost any small amount of credibility you had.

7x57
02-18-2009, 7:39 AM
Y
If there was another viable, pro-CCW sheriff candidate in that race I could maybe understand their position. But there isn't one (that I know of). Do they want SD residents to vote for an openly anti-CCW candidate just because LaSuer once pushed forward a bill that Gene and Bill didn't like?

You guys are all talking past each other. You're asking the question as though the SD sheriff's election is the only thing that matters. The contrary arguments are about long-term strategy and state-wide policy. You're not tending to address each other's concerns, though I must say that the "against" arguments have done a better job of this than the "for" arguments.

Some of the emotion comes from the fact that each side is implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, accusing the other of being sell-outs. The "for" team says not supporting la Suer is selling out San Diegian gunnies for some statewide strategy that (I guess they must believe) doesn't matter. The "against" team says that San Diegans are selling out all CA gunnies for their own little agenda, and doing so for absolutely nothing because the candidate cannot win anyway.

That is not a good recipe for amity.

They've been short on specifics, but I think the "against" recommendations seem to be these:

(1) It won't matter if you vote for la Suer or not, he simply cannot win.
(2) What matters is that he not be seen as having gunnie support, because it will give a very bad signal in a lot of future elections.

So I'd guess they just don't care how you *vote*, they just don't want any public appearance of being rewarded for some rather butt-headed anti-gun behavior in the past. So maybe they'd be happy if you vote for la Suer but don't support him publicly *as gunnies*.

Again, that's somewhat inferential, but I have tried to follow the arguments in this thread.

I might add that it isn't at all clear to me that public gunnie support is useful in a California urban county--if I were running for sheriff I'd be half-tempted to call the right people on the phone and say "if elected, I'd going to hand out CCWs to anyone who isn't obviously disqualified and I'm going to instruct my deputies to leave people alone about their CA-legal rifles and not harass gun owners not committing crimes. Now, you're sworn to silence about that, please loudly and publicly oppose me!"

But of course if I were running for sheriff it wouldn't matter because the left would be so appalled that it wouldn't matter what my gun position was. Then there's the matter that I'm not qualified to be sheriff anyway, nor do I want to be bored into insanity by being chief administrator and paper-pusher for the prison system....

7x57

7x57
02-18-2009, 7:41 AM
I'm guessing you don't own any of those magazines,

His handle is "Flintlock Tom"; his guns might not need any magazines. Or even firing pins. :D

7x57

bulgron
02-18-2009, 7:55 AM
You guys are all talking past each other. You're asking the question as though the SD sheriff's election is the only thing that matters. The contrary arguments are about long-term strategy and state-wide policy. You're not tending to address each other's concerns, though I must say that the "against" arguments have done a better job of this than the "for" arguments.

Some of the emotion comes from the fact that each side is implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, accusing the other of being sell-outs. The "for" team says not supporting la Suer is selling out San Diegian gunnies for some statewide strategy that (I guess they must believe) doesn't matter. The "against" team says that San Diegans are selling out all CA gunnies for their own little agenda, and doing so for absolutely nothing because the candidate cannot win anyway.

That is not a good recipe for amity.

They've been short on specifics, but I think the "against" recommendations seem to be these:

(1) It won't matter if you vote for la Suer or not, he simply cannot win.
(2) What matters is that he not be seen as having gunnie support, because it will give a very bad signal in a lot of future elections.

So I'd guess they just don't care how you *vote*, they just don't want any public appearance of being rewarded for some rather butt-headed anti-gun behavior in the past. So maybe they'd be happy if you vote for la Suer but don't support him publicly *as gunnies*.

Again, that's somewhat inferential, but I have tried to follow the arguments in this thread.

I might add that it isn't at all clear to me that public gunnie support is useful in a California urban county--if I were running for sheriff I'd be half-tempted to call the right people on the phone and say "if elected, I'd going to hand out CCWs to anyone who isn't obviously disqualified and I'm going to instruct my deputies to leave people alone about their CA-legal rifles and not harass gun owners not committing crimes. Now, you're sworn to silence about that, please loudly and publicly oppose me!"

But of course if I were running for sheriff it wouldn't matter because the left would be so appalled that it wouldn't matter what my gun position was. Then there's the matter that I'm not qualified to be sheriff anyway, nor do I want to be bored into insanity by being chief administrator and paper-pusher for the prison system....

7x57

Thank you.

In all of the exchanges in this thread, I somehow missed the point where LaSuer can't possibly win (is this true?) and that publicly supporting a losing candidate might harm the pro-gun-rights movement.

BTW, I don't entirely agree with that last statement.

If we're to advance our rights in this state, we're probably going to lose once in a while. The question is, how bad is the loss. If a candidate supported by the pro-gun movement almost wins a race, that sends a message that we're powerful and ought to send fear into the hearts or our enemies because next time we just might win. If it's a complete blow-out with the pro-gun candidate going down in flames, that's a different message entirely.

So are you saying that LaSuer is likely to go down in flames? This is the first inkling I've ever gotten of that. If that is the opinion of the leadership around here, I wonder what evidence they base that on.....

7x57
02-18-2009, 8:21 AM
If we're to advance our rights in this state, we're probably going to lose once in a while. The question is, how bad is the loss. If a candidate supported by the pro-gun movement almost wins a race, that sends a message that we're powerful and ought to send fear into the hearts or our enemies because next time we just might win. If it's a complete blow-out with the pro-gun candidate going down in flames, that's a different message entirely.


You're still not understanding the "against" argument. They are saying that *based on the evidence,* la Suer is NOT A PRO-GUN CANDIDATE. Maybe you disagree with that--fine, that part of the argument pits la Suer's current statements against his past record. Those are very different kinds of arguments, and we could talk about how to weigh those points. But you aren't understanding the "against" argument if you don't understand that they are saying that he isn't a real pro-gun candidate.

Bill at least went further than that--his argument amounted to la Suer being a demonstrably anti-gun candidate who insisted on being supported by gunnies because *HE* knew what was best for them. Bill's concern, and I believe Gene's and others', was that we *don't* want to teach CA politicians that they can vote anti-gun all they want and then turn around and get gunnie support when they decide they suddenly need it. Instead, they want to send the message that gunnies have long memories and are not bought off by sudden changes of rhetoric. That is a rational position, though I suppose the "for" camp could argue that CA politicians could not care less about gunnies anyway so the lesson would be lost. That is a rational argument we could have without flames, at least.

I'd really like to hear Ed Worley's take on la Suer's legislative career and relationship to gunnies, but as he was probably the point man in trying to get la Suer to drop his bill I am not entirely sure his take would be printable in a family forum. As a personal matter, it's unlikely I'd ever support an agenda that Ed Worley said was a bad strategy (but that doesn't apply here as he has not weighed in to my knowledge). He's a little scary in the area of hardball politics, but fortunately we (the NRA members anyway) pay him to be that way on our side. :D If we pay people to be our hardball players, we should either listen to them or hire someone we *will* listen to.

Bill at least had a slightly more subtle point along the same lines--he also didn't want to teach CA politicians that they can call themselves "pro-gun" and get gunnie support if they absolutely refuse to listen to *anything* the gunnies say they want. If Bill's story about la Suer's legislative history is correct, he pushed a bill that all the Right People said was a disaster, insisted that they had to support him as a pro-gun candidate no matter that gunnies said it was a disaster, and then tried to get the national NRA to spank the CA gunnies that were trying to stop the disaster. IOW, he insisted that gunnies basically just support him blindly. That seems...problematic. Especially since the antis often will attack black rifles with the claim that "this is common sense, as these are not sporting arms but killing machines, and many gun owners agree with this common-sense legislation."

It would help if the "for" side could really understand what the "against" side is saying and respond logically and clearly, rather than retreating into "don't interfere on our turf." The turf argument is terribly illogical anyway, because (1) the "for" people have actively campaigned for monetary support outside San Diego, and thus given up any rational right to tell other people to butt out, and (2) there isn't really any "turf" anyway as too much done in one part of CA affects all the others. I'd like to not hear any more about staying out of local matters and more understanding of the various arguments.


So are you saying that LaSuer is likely to go down in flames? This is the first inkling I've ever gotten of that. If that is the opinion of the leadership around here, I wonder what evidence they base that on.....

That was Bill's argument--I don't recall anyone else arguing it (or refuting it). Bill posted about that, though without many specifics. I would suggest using the search function to re-read his posts in this thread, and then bring up what things you'd like more details on. Bill can't respond himself, but I'm sure others can.

7x57

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 8:27 AM
So are you saying that LaSuer is likely to go down in flames? This is the first inkling I've ever gotten of that. If that is the opinion of the leadership around here, I wonder what evidence they base that on.....

I asked. Shaky speculation and rumor.

But it's beside the point anyway. This notion that those of us who support La Suer for sheriff are setting a precedent to reward "bad behavior" is silly. For one thing, those promoting that position don't apply it equally (case in point: GWB's support for the Fed AWB... twice -- both of his campaigns). But even that is beside the point. The offending piece of legislation in question wasn't crafted with malice in mind toward gun owners yet two very vocal people here are furiously spinning that lie. And why? I guess I don't really care to know.

What stands out to me, and should stand out to fellow San Diegan gun nuts here, is that a handful of vocal folks from out of our area are going to be working against our efforts even in spite of the fact that they have nothing to lose nor gain from a this local race.

Gee thanks for the support, Bill - Gene (anyone else).

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 8:35 AM
This notion that those of us who support La Suer for sheriff are setting a precedent to reward "bad behavior" is silly. For one thing, those promoting that position don't apply it equally (case in point: GWB's support for the Fed AWB... twice -- both of his campaigns).

You will see me routinely exorcise GWB's Solicitor General for attempting to torpedo Heller. It is directly because of Bush's DOJ that machine guns were even brought up in Heller. Read it here (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf) and weep.

I'll also note that this is not just about people who live in San Diego. Sheriff Jay has been asking all sorts of us pro-gun folks to donate money and support.

I look forward to his response on the issue of his de-facto anti-gun bill.

-Gene

DedEye
02-18-2009, 8:40 AM
What stands out to me, and should stand out to fellow San Diegan gun nuts here, is that a handful of vocal folks from out of our area are going to be working against our efforts even in spite of the fact that they have nothing to lose nor gain from a this local race.

You (or Jay) asked for it when donations and support were solicited from out of your area.

Jay also has a history at the statewide level.

The people involved aren't carpetbaggers with no interest in the success of the gun rights movement in California, the opposite is in fact true.

Like Gene, I have repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of Bush supporters giving him a pass for his AWB support.

Kestryll
02-18-2009, 8:45 AM
Like Gene, I have repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of Bush supporters giving him a pass for his AWB support.

Sell that feces elsewhere.
Your distaste for Bush was not based on the AWB but on the 'R' after his name.

Anyone who could not see that his 'support' of the AWB was predicated on the knowledge that Congress would NEVER send it to him has no business discussing politics.

They are either willfully ignorant or willfully blind.

Kestryll
02-18-2009, 8:54 AM
As for LaSuer some simple questions that require simple answers.


If LaSuer is not acceptable who in the San Diego Sheriffs race is the better candidate?
If you're going to tell people they should not vote for someone they agree with you better have an alternative to offer.
No fancy contortions or long winded explanations, simply give a name.

If LaSuer can not win, who is the front runner who can, regardless of 2A position?
Again, if your going to tell people someone can not win you'd better be able to tell them who is most likely to.
Simply give a name.

Is there a candidate who does NOT have a 2A issue, either current or in their past, running in this race?
And again, let's save the verbal gymnastics for later and just give a name.


Frankly I don't get to vote in this so my questions are primarily just curiosity.

Flintlock Tom
02-18-2009, 8:59 AM
:rolleyes: Perhaps you should have read it four times. It's a good thing you weren't in a position to vote for it then.

Let's see if we can figure out what you don't understand.



Did the bolded sections clear things up for you? You talk about how there would be no Prince50 and no Bullet Button, and you're right. With the wording of the law as it was proposed in 2218, neither of those devices would have been relevant or rendered California compliance. You say "everything on the list would have been available, unmodified" without realizing that the exact opposite is true. There would no longer be a list, but everything that is or was on the list would have to be modified.

Capacity to accept is a far, FAR worse definition than capacity to detach. This has been hashed out dozens of times.

Additionally, did you completely miss all the references to constructive possession?

Do you even know what that concept is?

Do you understand that with the wording of this bill, owning an AR with "capacity to accept" and magazines greater than ten rounds would mean you have an assault weapon? Do you not see how this is a problem for the hundreds of thousands of California residents who have magazines greater than ten rounds?


Condescension aside, I DO get it.
But it seems to boil down to a difference of opinion and perspective.
Your position seems to be "I have a +10 capacity mag that I can use in this very short list of firearms, but only after they have been modified."
My position is: if I accept a 10 round magazine limit, I can have any semi auto firearm I want, unmodified. And once we have those firearms legally in the state, the next step is to work on the magazine limit as being petty and irrelevant. This seems like a relatively do-able step. This seems to me to be the more realistic long-term strategy.
But the most important point I would like YOU to get is that AB 2218 is not the clear-cut anti-gun measure that you would have us believe.


I'm guessing you don't own any of those magazines, and are perfectly willing to sell everyone else up the river as a result. If I'm wrong, I shall stand corrected and apologize. If I'm not, then you've lost any small amount of credibility you had.

You would be wrong and I accept your apology.

Flintlock Tom
02-18-2009, 9:33 AM
Dedeye,

There would no longer be a list, but everything that is or was on the list would have to be modified.

Capacity to accept is a far, FAR worse definition than capacity to detach. This has been hashed out dozens of times.

I just realized that you think the "capacity to accept" language applies to the firearm. When in fact it only applies to the magazine.
You seem to be fixating on the introductory summary which is not binding as law. The actual penal code states:
"12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the
following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles when equipped with
a magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds

The firearms themselves can have any capacity as designed, with no modification.
Granted I would no longer be able to use my 20 round mags, but, I would be able to buy an unmodified Colt AR15.
And when the political pendulum begins to swing back to the right, the magazine capacity limits will become "low hanging fruit".

Alaric
02-18-2009, 10:06 AM
As for LaSuer some simple questions that require simple answers.


If LaSuer is not acceptable who in the San Diego Sheriffs race is the better candidate?
If you're going to tell people they should not vote for someone they agree with you better have an alternative to offer.
No fancy contortions or long winded explanations, simply give a name.

If LaSuer can not win, who is the front runner who can, regardless of 2A position?
Again, if your going to tell people someone can not win you'd better be able to tell them who is most likely to.
Simply give a name.

Is there a candidate who does NOT have a 2A issue, either current or in their past, running in this race?
And again, let's save the verbal gymnastics for later and just give a name.


Frankly I don't get to vote in this so my questions are primarily just curiosity.

+1. The silence on this question coming from the anti-LaSuer folks is deafening. They are fully aware that there is no alternative to LaSuer that offers San Diego gun owners a pro-2nd candidate in this election. The best they can come up with is to bite the bullet and wait for another election.

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 10:09 AM
You (or Jay) asked for it when donations and support were solicited from out of your area.

Then don't donate. It's that simple. But don't undermine our efforts in a race that won't ever affect you. Please?

Piper
02-18-2009, 10:13 AM
two possible outcomes by voting this guy in.

1. He keeps his word, and doesn't modify his position later on by reinterpreting what he meant as opposed to what he said.

2. He does modify his position, and you get business as usual.

Kestryll
02-18-2009, 10:16 AM
+1. The silence on this question coming from the anti-LaSuer folks is deafening. They are fully aware that there is no alternative to LaSuer that offers San Diego gun owners a pro-2nd candidate in this election. The best they can come up with is to bite the bullet and wait for another election.

I really don't care if the answers come from an 'anti' or 'pro' LaSuer person.

Given that there are some questions I want to see what the options are.

I'm not backing either position at this point.

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 10:19 AM
Anyone who could not see that his 'support' of the AWB was predicated on the knowledge that Congress would NEVER send it to him has no business discussing politics.

The point is, the NRA still endorsed him even if we believe the apologist slant that he was just giving lip-service to the antis when he stated his support. That epitomizes "rewarding bad behavior" and his words were far more egregious than La Suer's legislation that is being branded "anti-gun" here.

The same can be said of Bill Simon on the state level. IIRC, he was endorsed by the NRA and had the support of a lot of gun nuts in spite of his unequivocal statements made during in his debate with Davis that he opposed so-called "assault weapons". I don't recall a lot of outrage over that at the time.

Glock22Fan
02-18-2009, 10:20 AM
two possible outcomes by voting this guy in.

1. He keeps his word, and doesn't modify his position later on by reinterpreting what he meant as opposed to what he said.

2. He does modify his position, and you get business as usual.

I'm not in S.D. so don't have a horse in this race, but tend to agree with Piper.

If I were there, I'd rather vote for someone who says roughly what I think he should say and risk him reneging a little, than vote for someone who takes an anti-CCW position and expect him to renege.

Of course, if some other candidate crops up with a pro-CCW position and a better history, that would make it harder to decide, but as it stands at present, I'd rather vote for someone who at least seems to be on our side and hope he's learned lessons from the past.

I have to say though, Nicki, that I didn't understand the poll either, so I didn't vote.

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 10:23 AM
If LaSuer can not win, who is the front runner who can, regardless of 2A position?

Contrary to popular myth, Kolender isn't hated in the county. He's stated repeatedly that he will endorse Bill Gore to replace him.

I'm not sure what the "experts" in Santa Clara county will tell you, but that's what is a fact in San Diego.

Alaric
02-18-2009, 10:39 AM
Contrary to popular myth, Kolender isn't hated in the county. He's stated repeatedly that he will endorse Bill Gore to replace him.

I'm not sure what the "experts" in Santa Clara county will tell you, but that's what is a fact in San Diego.

Correct, Kolender is not hated. That is not the issue here. Kolender is highly restrictive on CCW permit issuance (San Diego County Population 2,918,300, Sheriff William Kolender, 1703 permits, 0.058% issuance. http://californiaccw.org/forums/list.page). Bill Gore has stated that he will continue the policies of Kolender, which translates to a continuation of CCW restricted issuance.

LaSuer is our best chance for reforming CCW policies here in the near term.

DedEye
02-18-2009, 11:23 AM
Sell that feces elsewhere.
Your distaste for Bush was not based on the AWB but on the 'R' after his name.

Anyone who could not see that his 'support' of the AWB was predicated on the knowledge that Congress would NEVER send it to him has no business discussing politics.

They are either willfully ignorant or willfully blind.

My distaste for Bush was based on his numerous policies, not on his party affiliation.

I've voted across the aisle, can you say the same?

Anyone who makes unfounded accusations based on partisan beliefs is either willfully ignorant or willfully blind.

Flintlock Tom
02-18-2009, 11:28 AM
My distaste for Bush was based on his numerous policies, not on his party affiliation.

I've voted across the aisle, can you say the same?

Anyone who makes unfounded accusations based on partisan beliefs is either willfully ignorant or willfully blind.

There ya' go. There IS something we can agree on.

DedEye
02-18-2009, 11:29 AM
There ya' go. There IS something we can agree on.

Don't get me wrong, there's many things we can agree on; after all, we're both gunnies ;).

Kestryll
02-18-2009, 11:31 AM
My distaste for Bush was based on his numerous policies, not on his party affiliation.

I've voted across the aisle, can you say the same?
Yes, in a voting career longer then your life span I have voted Republican, Democrat and Independent.
Several times.


Anyone who makes unfounded accusations based on partisan beliefs is either willfully ignorant or willfully blind.

Or far more aware of the game being played them some would like to admit.

GuyW
02-18-2009, 11:51 AM
Why should the pro gun community support someone who did something demonstrably antigun or was too unaware of the issues to not do something antigun?


Gee, I dunno - why should we support the NRA which

sold us out on machine guns in 1986,

backed an incumbent CA anti-gun Sheriff,

backed convicted criminal Ted Steven's federal bill that had -0- to do with guns but did infringe on Constitutional property rights,

has a history of sticking its nose into state and local pro-gun legislative negotiations and upsetting the apple carts??

You people are unhinged.

Yes, we should always attempt to punish TRUE anti-gunners (find my philosophical thread where I talk about giving pain).

However, I can't recall seeing "us" give any of them pain.

Jay La Suer is in no way an anti-gunner. This smear campaign still smells of a hidden agenda...
.

GuyW
02-18-2009, 11:57 AM
Gore is the likely strongest opponent for LaSuer. Gore has a stated position of continuing the anti-ccw issuance policies of his predecessor Sheriff Kolender.

As we heard last night, when JOHN Duffy was Sheriff, San Diego had 8000 CCWs, (and 25-50% of todays population).

San Diego now has less than 1500 CCWs, and many are not being renewed.

Kolender is a past national board member of Handgun Kontrol, and Gore is his BOY, and the establishment-favorite.
.

tango-52
02-18-2009, 12:06 PM
Before becoming a legislator, LaSuer was a city councilman for La Mesa, the city adjacent to my home town. La Mesa has its own police department, therefore it has the ability to issue CCWs should it chose to do so. While on the council, LaSuer pushed to get La Mesa to go shall issue. He would have had it too, without the meddling of agitators from outside La Mesa. I was at that Council meeting. I believe LaSuer when he says he is pro-CCW. Perhaps there is a belief by some that if San Diegans get CCWs they won't be interested in helping with state-wide issues. I disagree. Although I live in San Diego County, I am personally hip deep in the fight against the appointed OC Sheriff, Hutchens. The fight is to get state-wide Shall Issue, even if it is only county-by-county until only LA and SF are left to browbeat into submission. Now, if something legislatively comes along to speed that process up, I am all for it. But I will not sit idly by waiting upon the assurances of the "right people" that eventually things will change, when I can actively work toward a solution that can be realized in less than 18 months.

GuyW
02-18-2009, 12:07 PM
+1. The silence on this question coming from the anti-LaSuer folks is deafening. They are fully aware that there is no alternative to LaSuer that offers San Diego gun owners a pro-2nd candidate in this election. The best they can come up with is to bite the bullet and wait for another election.

Maybe they are just doing political dirty work for Gore or some other candidate...

.

Cypren
02-18-2009, 12:12 PM
Or they are doing political dirty work for Gore...

Please be careful with throwing accusations like that -- either express or implied -- without some kind of evidence. Plenty of people can disagree with you, and with your candidate, without being "enemy agents" for your opposition.

This trench warfare mentality of "you're either with us or you're EVIL!" is one reason why modern politics is such a cesspool. It's possible for two rational, well-meaning people to disagree without one of them being a tool of dark powers and/or a child molester in his spare time.

There's no reason for Calguns to descend to that level.

Kestryll
02-18-2009, 12:17 PM
Or they are doing political dirty work for Gore or some other candidate...

.

Enough of that kind of crap.

No one here is trying to pull some back door back stab.

Each 'side' has strongly held convictions and both are presenting them, that's all.
Making accusation like this only acts to call questions upon yourself.
If the only way Bill or Gene could argue this vehemently is by having an outside agenda then you must as well.
Give how ardently you're arguing for LaSuer you must be being paid by him to champion his cause..

See how that cuts both ways and helps NO ONE?

Leave the specious accusations at the door.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-18-2009, 12:19 PM
Before becoming a legislator, LaSuer was a city councilman for La Mesa, the city adjacent to my home town. La Mesa has its own police department, therefore it has the ability to issue CCWs should it chose to do so. While on the council, LaSuer pushed to get La Mesa to go shall issue.

A rare gem of useful information in this thread.

Gene, let me pose a question to you if I may:

Is there a plan for change in CCW on the statewide level currently on the stove?

If yes, does the election of LaSuer to Sheriff in SD County screw up the recipe?

If yes, can you expand on that a little?

GuyW
02-18-2009, 12:19 PM
Before becoming a legislator, LaSuer was a city councilman for La Mesa, the city adjacent to my home town. La Mesa has its own police department, therefore it has the ability to issue CCWs should it chose to do so. While on the council, LaSuer pushed to get La Mesa to go shall issue. He would have had it too, without the meddling of agitators from outside La Mesa. I was at that Council meeting.

All true. In fact, it passed on the first reading, and the 3rd Councilman got cold feet on the
2nd vote (La Suer and Barry Jantz YES) .

But ignore all that - the wizards behind the curtain say that people who have publicly voted to issue CCWs are ANTI-GUN.

Perhaps there is a belief by some that if San Diegans get CCWs they won't be interested in helping with state-wide issues. I disagree.

You're right. 99.99% of the folks interested in SD CCWs will remain in the fight until victory.


Now, if something legislatively comes along to speed that process up, I am all for it. But I will not sit idly by waiting upon the assurances of the "right people" that eventually things will change, when I can actively work toward a solution that can be realized in less than 18 months.

Every pro-gun avenue needs to be pushed, because forecasting every eventuality is impossible. That means Team Billy Jack keeps giving the jerks pain, and Nordyke et seq is pushed, and local Sheriff's races are contested, etc etc.

.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-18-2009, 12:22 PM
Also I've heard in this thread that the NRA gave LaSuer an A rating, but it was only a couple years ago that he was causing real headaches for the NRA.

Does the NRA have that short of a memory?

OR

Did LaSuer and the NRA have make-up sex?

7x57
02-18-2009, 12:24 PM
Or they are doing political dirty work for Gore or some other candidate...

.

Bill got banned but that kind of thing slides? I guess I haven't been around Calguns long enough to know the precise boundaries. I don't think I recall reading anything that Bill posted that I regard as worse than implicitly accusing some of the hardest-working 2A people of being essentially liars, crooks, and amoral political shills for gun-banners. Give me Bill's rhetoric any day.

Meditation for the day: an armed society may be a polite society in person, but over the internet it's as rude and crude as anyplace else. :chris:

7x57, breathing deep and thinking happy thoughts about fuzzy puppies

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-18-2009, 12:25 PM
This reminds me of the Poochigian vs Jerry Brown AG race and when stoopid Pooch brought up the repeal of the 50BMG ban.

I get the same vibe. In this state, being loudly pro-gun is not frequently a winning campaign. I would think it would be better to be quietly pro-gun to the gunnies, and otherwise run a standard campaign of "I have support from X Y and Z, vote for me."

Also, Bill, you heart Jerry Brown, so it's all good.

Kestryll
02-18-2009, 12:29 PM
Bill got banned but that kind of thing slides? I guess I haven't been around Calguns long enough to know the precise boundaries. I don't think I recall reading anything that Bill posted that I regard as worse than implicitly accusing some of the hardest-working 2A people of being essentially liars, crooks, and amoral political shills for gun-banners. Give me Bill's rhetoric any day.

Meditation for the day: an armed society may be a polite society in person, but over the internet it's as rude and crude as anyplace else. :chris:

7x57, breathing deep and thinking happy thoughts about fuzzy puppies

Rhetoric is one thing, this is another:
I don't need to deal with sh*tball pols or their trolls.
I notice Jay doesn't have the balls to respond directly.
Arse-kissing someone
Not when you are trying to f*ck the rest of the state
I don't respect idiotic blind support of traitors.

Foul language
Crude, offensive posts
Intentionally bypassing the word filters
Calling members idiots

7x57
02-18-2009, 12:29 PM
Also I've heard in this thread that the NRA gave LaSuer an A rating, but it was only a couple years ago that he was causing real headaches for the NRA.

Does the NRA have that short of a memory?

OR

Did LaSuer and the NRA have make-up sex?

I know nothing about national NRA or how the ratings are computed, but I can assure you that the people who do the hard work in CA for the NRA have absolutely not forgotten. When in the state legislature la Suer was a screw-up of the first order, and arrogant about it. A bigger screw-up than most people seem to realize. Some research is quite enlightening.

What that says about his fitness for being sheriff-for-life is something for others to contemplate.

7x57

jacques
02-18-2009, 12:40 PM
Also I've heard in this thread that the NRA gave LaSuer an A rating, but it was only a couple years ago that he was causing real headaches for the NRA.

Does the NRA have that short of a memory?

OR

Did LaSuer and the NRA have make-up sex?

Ya know, along those lines, but maybe backwards, Sheriff Brown here in Santa Barabara County was supposidly endorsed by the NRA. Once in however, it would seem he shmoozed with the liberal anti's in the county here and is not issueing or renwing CCW. It is not even worth applying for now because it is an automatic reject.

Bill_in_SD
02-18-2009, 1:09 PM
Here is a list of candidates that have officially formed committees so far:

Jay LaSuer
William Gore
James Duffy
Bruce Ruff

I am having a hard time with the fact that I know Jay LaSuer is reading this forum (as evidenced by posts in another thread) and not posting here any response.
I will sit back and continue to read the discussion but have nothing more to contribute than the list I got from the San Diego Registrar of Voters' office.

7x57
02-18-2009, 1:09 PM
There is a logical problem with this thread, and I think I now know what it is.

Everyone on this thread seems to be quite concerned with whether Jay la Suer is pro-gun or anti-gun. One reason that this buys such a huge argument is that the data seems ambiguous; he supported some bad carbine legislation, but says he's for CCW. So (the sane part of) this argument is really about how the legislative evidence should be weighted relative to his campaign rhetoric. This in turn depends on how consistent you think he is--if you take both bits of data seriously, he must have changed at some point. Most people are discounting one or the other bits of evidence.

Now someone has posted that he has a record of local-level legislative support of CCW. Assuming that is true, then if we persist in asking if he is pro- or anti-gun we have to either believe he changed *twice* (pro to anti to pro) or that we should just ignore some data.

When the data are inconsistent, the odds are great that you're trying to fit them into the wrong categories. What if we just ask what categories would best explain both his record of anti-carbine legislation and his pro-CCW rhetoric (and apparently record as a local politician)? It turns out to be remarkably easy to construct a theory that explains both sets of data in a consistent way. I am half-tempted not to say what it is because I fear it will lead to more bitter divisions, but it is what it is.

Maybe Calgunners don't really recognize that most people have bought a core gun-banner premise, that "they's good guns and they's bad guns" (echoing a phrase from segregation). If you remember that, it's pretty simple to explain Jay la Suer's record without contradiction: he's pro-CCW and pro-handgun but anti-black rifle. I think it's that simple--he thinks that citizens defending themselves with a handgun is good for society, but "nobody needs an assault weapon." He supported CCW at the local level because that's about good guns. He mucked about with the AW thing because *either* he really doesn't like them, or because he just was horse trading away black rifles he *at best* doesn't care about for some other political issue he liked. Now he talks about CCW in his campaign because, again, that's about good guns.

The only alternative, given the efforts of the NRA to tell him what a disaster his AW tweaking would be, is that he's not anti-black rifle but is extremely arrogant and absolutely impervious to other people's opinions. But if he really thought his bill was a good thing for gunnies, then instead I have to question whether his judgment and personality are fit for any sort of position of authority. Not listening is just about the worst possible trait in an official with the power to ruin people's lives.

I would like someone to *directly* ask him about ARs and AKs and OLLs. The answer might be interesting, and might even reveal if he's really anti-BR or simply incapable of learning anything from someone else. It also might raise concerns about how he's going to enforce the CA "AW" ban. If it turns out that he'll readily issue CCWs but BR people will be subject to harassment with the sheriff's blessing, what kind of a trade has been made?

Now, here is why I thought about this for a while before posting: it essentially pits black rifles against concealed handguns, and that's an ugly split to have in our ranks. I think we're already close to that, however, with the mutual accusations of selling-out, and in any case I'm not inclined to suppress whatever arguments make sense.

I will say this: there is very little that would make the anti-gun people happier than to have the CCW people feuding with the BR people. That essentially has been the basis of their entire divide-and-conquer strategy from the 1934 act onwards. Let's not be Sarah Brady's lackeys.

I will say one other thing: I'm disturbed by the fact that virtually every person who's record and judgment has earned my respect is unenthusiastic (to say the least) about Jay la Suer, and I don't recognize his most vocal supporters. Further, those relatively unknown vocal supporters seem very ready to accuse the people who do the most good work of being sell-outs. Since there is very little less likely than that, I have to say that if we are going to entertain ad hominem arguments they are very strongly against la Suer being someone we want to reward and work with.

We don't *have* to engage in ad hominem rhetoric, of course, and it would probably be far more in the interest of la Suer's supporters to avoid it than anyone else. It might be a good idea for some of them to contemplate *why* it might be that those particular people are coming down on the other side, and to offer credible arguments as to why their credibility is equal to the "against" team.

7x57, Going back to the happy thoughts now. Mmm, puppies. So fuzzy....

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-18-2009, 1:46 PM
So you're thinking maybe he's a Zumbo?

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 2:03 PM
1. My answer to people asking if there is a better candidate is simple. There are 0 candidates in this race so far because the ballot cut off hasn't come.

2. The NRA has not endorsed LaSuer in this race. Any implication to the contrary would be against what I understand to be NRA's policy from direct discussions with them. I can say that I expect Jay to have to answer some difficult questions about his bill - questions he should address here.

3. There is a statewide plan on CCW. LaSuer can indirectly severely harm it. Letting supposedly pro-gun politicians simply get away with selling gun owners down a river isn't a winning long term strategy. If I'm wrong and Jay has some sort of explanation for AB 2218 (2004) I'm all ears.

4. Let me get this straight. LaSuer supporters are bashing the NRA? Are they even members?

The only way to exert control over politicians is to get 'em unelected. If they've transgressed they need to stay unelected. If you don't enforce the ban then there is no reason for them to, say, carry unpopular bills in Sacramento that are important to gun owners.

You ever considered that guys running for Sheriff like "may issue?"

-Genee

ar15barrels
02-18-2009, 2:08 PM
Rhetoric is one thing, this is another:

Foul language
Crude, offensive posts
Intentionally bypassing the word filters
Calling members idiots

Sounds like a party to me.

Bureau of
Alcohol,
Tobacco,
Firearms &
Explosives.
Who's bringing the chips?

ar15barrels
02-18-2009, 2:14 PM
You ever considered that guys running for Sheriff like "may issue?"

-Genee

Hey Gene, your name is already in your signature. :thumbsup:

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-18-2009, 2:17 PM
Also I've heard in this thread that the NRA gave LaSuer an A rating, but it was only a couple years ago that he was causing real headaches for the NRA.

Does the NRA have that short of a memory?

OR

Did LaSuer and the NRA have make-up sex?

Holding pattern on this question as a review is pending in http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=155355 as to whether the NRA ever actually did give such a rating...

Alaric
02-18-2009, 2:40 PM
Per the other thread, the answer is that Jay received an A+ rating from the NRA-VPF in his 2004 bid for California's 77th Assembly district seat. http://www.nrapvf.org/ELECTIONS/State.aspx?y=2004&State=CA

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-18-2009, 2:53 PM
Per the other thread, the answer is that Jay received an A+ rating from the NRA-VPF in his 2004 bid for California's 77th Assembly district seat. http://www.nrapvf.org/ELECTIONS/State.aspx?y=2004&State=CA

Mere months after a fracas over AB 2218 (2004)?

Left hand <- / -> Right hand?

ILA <- / -> PVF?

Or perhaps issued immediately before the fracas?

7x57
02-18-2009, 2:56 PM
So you're thinking maybe he's a Zumbo?

Well, the shoe seems to fit, so I definitely wonder about that.

The other problem is that if he thinks like a LE commander, the rationale may not be like Zumbo's ("I like some guns, not others"). After all, unlike Jim Zumbo it's unlikely that Jay la Suer doesn't know anything about carbines and hasn't ever fired one (or at least I gathered that was the case with JZ). If he thinks like some LEOs it might rather be "I don't like guns that homeowners might use if we decide to do some crazy-fun door-kicking." If SWAT comes through the door your handgun isn't going to be nearly as dangerous to them as a carbine.

To digress a moment and state the obvious for our friendly neighborhood DOJ readers, I in no way support resisting LE by force, but I also haven't the slightest bit of sympathy for no-knock warrants without serious reason for them. No-knock is unconstitutional and incompatible with freedom, but the way to fight them is in court and in the legislature. The problem is that you can't know the people storming your house like stormtroopers are police during the assault.

But back to the issue at hand, I am not one of the police-bashers here. But what should I guess about a LEO, particularly an executive, who doesn't like citizens with carbines? I must admit that if I use precisely the logic of those who wrote the Bill of Rights, I would conclude that it's likely that he wants to make sure no-knock escapades go off without a hitch. It is no different than assuming that Gen. Gage wants to seize the gunpowder and rifles because he intends to do something that people might resist with gunpowder and rifles. That was how the shooting started in 1775.

I have no particular reason to think that is la Suer's logic--I would absolutely hope not. But I find it disturbing that the logic of the American Revolution says I should assume it until proven otherwise. And to be fair, I'm sure that the anti-CCW candidates are completely anti-BR too, and I'm quite sure no other candidate will be better.

So maybe we need to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's more of a Zumbo thing. But if it *is* a Zumbo thing, I still don't like it. More importantly than what he might do though, I don't like the thought of the BR guys and the CCW guys feuding, to the advantage of the gun banners.

Darn it, the more I try to analyze this thread the unhappier I get. Must. think. happy. thoughts. Puppies, fuzzy tail-wagging puppies. So soft and fuzzy....

7x57

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 3:01 PM
Correct, Kolender is not hated. That is not the issue here.

Sure it is. In the context of what I said, it means that Kolender's endorsement will carry a lot of weight. Even in a high population county like San Diego, the sheriff's race isn't going to garner a lot of attention. The average voter isn't going to put much thought into it. Name recognition goes a long way and in lieu of seeing the familiar incumbent on the ballot (Kolender), the next logical step will be to see who they support -- in this case, it'll be Gore.

Jay is already at a disadvantage in that respect. Making the matter worse for him and his supporters will be the issue of out of area gunnies that are apparently dead set on disrupting a race that has no bearing on their lives.

Sad.

Alaric
02-18-2009, 3:05 PM
Sure it is. In the context of what I said, it means that Kolender's endorsement will carry a lot of weight. Even in a high population county like San Diego, the sheriff's race isn't going to garner a lot of attention. The average voter isn't going to put much thought into it. Name recognition goes a long way and in lieu of seeing the familiar incumbent on the ballot (Kolender), the next logical step will be to see who they support -- in this case, it'll be Gore.

Jay is already at a disadvantage in that respect. Making the matter worse for him and his supporters will be the issue of out of area gunnies that are apparently dead set on disrupting a race that has no bearing on their lives.

Sad.

I stand corrected. Well said.

7x57
02-18-2009, 3:08 PM
Making the matter worse for him and his supporters will be the issue of out of area gunnies that are apparently dead set on disrupting a race that has no bearing on their lives.


In case you haven't been following along at home, whether the race has bearing on their lives is very much a question for debate. Just asserting precisely the matter in contention is not nice or terribly honest.

However, that horse kicked open the gate when Jay and his supporters asked for the money of out of area gunnies. By doing so, they expressed a belief that it *did* matter to their lives and invited them to be part of the debate and campaign.

You don't get to involve people only when you want them and exclude them when you don't want them. It doesn't work that way.


Sad.

The situation is sad, but precisely what we should be sad about is what is under debate. The other side will say it's sad that SD CCWers are willing to sell out everyone else for a long-shot candidate.

Which is true? That's precisely the question to be debated, not assumed.

7x57

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 3:12 PM
I will say one other thing: I'm disturbed by the fact that virtually every person who's record and judgment has earned my respect is unenthusiastic (to say the least) about Jay la Suer, and I don't recognize his most vocal supporters.

You're entitled to your opinion, but how many of La Suer's detractors actually reside in San Diego county? That should tell you something right there.

Flintlock Tom
02-18-2009, 3:15 PM
I'm hoping that the "name recognition" voters will be split between Duffy and Gore leaving the majority of "thoughtful" voters for LaSuer.

7x57
02-18-2009, 3:15 PM
You're entitled to your opinion, but how many of La Suer's detractors actually reside in San Diego county? That should tell you something right there.

It might tell me something very different than you think. It is just as valid as evidence of a sell-out by the San Diego crowd as it is of meddling. If you don't see that, it is because your own agenda has blinded you and not anything inherent in the data.

7x57

bulgron
02-18-2009, 3:17 PM
It might tell me something very different than you think. It is just as valid as evidence of a sell-out by the San Diego crowd as it is of meddling. If you don't see that, it is because your own agenda has blinded you and not anything inherent in the data.

7x57

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who the viable alternative to LaSuer is.

Flintlock Tom
02-18-2009, 3:18 PM
It might tell me something very different than you think. It is just as valid as evidence of a sell-out by the San Diego crowd as it is of meddling. If you don't see that, it is because your own agenda has blinded you and not anything inherent in the data.

7x57
Now, there you go jumping out of your calm happy place again. Careful you might pull a muscle. :D

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 3:20 PM
In case you haven't been following along at home, whether the race has bearing on their lives is very much a question for debate. Just asserting precisely the matter in contention is not nice or terribly honest.

I've asked more than once for those advancing that notion to demonstrate how it will. So far the answers have been mostly abstract philosophical arguments about "rewarding bad behavior".

If anyone has something a bit more tangible to add to that then they should.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-18-2009, 3:23 PM
The score so far

Anti-gun:
legislation that would have outlawed 10+ cap magazines.
legislation that would have really screwed up mail-order of ammo and allowed cities to impose their own additional restrictions above and beyond what the bill called for, giving us a patchwork mess of headache to buy ammo.

Pro-gun:
while in the City Council, pushed for greater CCW issuance.
promises greater CCW issuance if he's elected.

Kestryll
02-18-2009, 3:24 PM
I've asked more than once for those advancing that notion to demonstrate how it will. So far the answers have been mostly abstract philosophical arguments about "rewarding bad behavior".

If anyone has something a bit more tangible to add to that then they should.

I take it you missed this post earlier.

There is a statewide plan on CCW. LaSuer can indirectly severely harm it.

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 3:24 PM
It might tell me something very different than you think. It is just as valid as evidence of a sell-out by the San Diego crowd as it is of meddling.

Promoting a pro-gun candidate for a position that holds the potential to benefit the gun nuts in our county is "selling out"? Good grief...

I'm going to archive this thread and point to it in the future when people gripe about the lack of willingness on the part of gun owners to get directly involved in the political process.

This is some amazing stuff here.

7x57
02-18-2009, 3:24 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who the viable alternative to LaSuer is.

Aside from Gene's argument that it's too early to take sides in an official way, there is always the possibility that the best option is to take no position. People seem to simply ignore the possibility. That isn't theoretical--I recall hearing Ed Worley mention a specific case where that was exactly the best option for the NRA. It did more damage if they endorsed anyone. If they endorsed the best choice in the field, his opponent could run against the NRA instead of the candidate.

Why is it not possible that the best of a bad set of options is no public gunnie support for any candidate in this election? If it is possible, why is it obvious that it isn't the case? It seems that this is the "against" position: not that they have a better candidate, but rather that there is no likely candidate on the horizon worth supporting.

7x57

7x57
02-18-2009, 3:25 PM
Now, there you go jumping out of your calm happy place again. Careful you might pull a muscle. :D

Oops. Puppies!

7x57

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 3:27 PM
I take it you missed this post earlier.

No. I saw it and it was as vague now as it was then. If Gene wants to clarify what harm will come about, then he (or you) can go right ahead. I'm all ears.

Besides that, the way I read it, the purpose of the statement was to provide a jumping off point to rant about AB2218 yet again.

7x57
02-18-2009, 3:30 PM
Promoting a pro-gun candidate for a position that holds the potential to benefit the gun nuts in our county is "selling out"? Good grief...

I'm going to archive this thread and point to it in the future when people gripe about the lack of willingness on the part of gun owners to get directly involved in the political process.

This is some amazing stuff here.

Yeah. Amazing that people persist in assuming the point in contention in order to prejudge the conclusion. You say he is "pro-gun" as though that is an inarguable point that all should agree on. If all agreed, we wouldn't be having the conversation. Is Jay la Suer "pro-gun"? I don't know--in fact, I don't know that he is either, in one sense. I have already expressed an opinion that he behaves as if he is "pro-some-guns" and "anti-some-guns."

What does that mean? That's the trouble. I actually think "pro some guns" is an anti-gun position based on an anti-gun lie, but I suppose some might disagree. Others will in their turn call that a sell-out position. And then the name-calling starts up again.

ETA: "benefit the gun nuts in our country"? Who uses rhetoric like "gun nuts"? Who benefits from rhetoric like "gun nuts?"

7x57

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 3:41 PM
And then the name-calling starts up again.

I've been called a lot of things here on CG: troll, CRPA plant, "glue-huffer", so I don't care one way or the other about that.

You seem to genuinely want to get to the truth and be objective about it, but at the same time you admit lending more credit to the words of the vocal minority around here while holding others in a more suspect light. That's fine though, because in the end, whatever you conclude about La Suer will be irrelevant since you won't be voting here.

I only mean that as a statement of fact -- not a flame.

And "gun nut" is a term of endearment. FWIW.

Alaric
02-18-2009, 3:44 PM
So why is everyone so up in arms about Sheriff Hutchens in Orange County trying to repeal CCW's and restrict new permits, but they can't give a rats behind about our plight in San Diego? If they were really so concerned about the super top secret covert op plan to address ccw's at the state level, they wouldn't be involved there either.

And by the way, I would gladly trade my 20 round mags for a standard mag release. AB2218 made sense at the time when bullet buttons and OLL's were not widely known of yet and the general public generally couldn't go to a gun shop and buy any type of EBR.

bulgron
02-18-2009, 3:50 PM
Why is it not possible that the best of a bad set of options is no public gunnie support for any candidate in this election? If it is possible, why is it obvious that it isn't the case? It seems that this is the "against" position: not that they have a better candidate, but rather that there is no likely candidate on the horizon worth supporting.

7x57

It's one thing to decide to not support someone, and so to decide to remain silent. It's another thing entirely to publicly hack away at a candidate with the kind of fervor that I reserve for true anti-gun politicians (Pelosi, Feinstein, etc).

If the CalGuns crowd doesn't want to endorse someone, then fine. But if they're going to outright attack a candidate, then I want to know what alternative they suggest. Otherwise, what they're doing is driving pro-gun votes away from a candidate who might be a friend of ours (or certainly friendlier than the rest of the field), only to potentially see those votes go to a candidate who is outright hostile to us.

I don't think you'll ever see the NRA outright attacking a politician unless they have a solid, viable alternative to endorse. There's a reason for this, yes?

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-18-2009, 3:56 PM
No. I saw it and it was as vague now as it was then. If Gene wants to clarify what harm will come about, then he (or you) can go right ahead. I'm all ears.

Besides that, the way I read it, the purpose of the statement was to provide a jumping off point to rant about AB2218 yet again.

Knowing Gene, I know he has interesting stuff up his sleeve, and knows about interesting things up others' sleeves. I'm aware of a small amount of what's in those sleeves, and what I'm aware of makes me giggle.

(God, this is sounding really gay.)

That being said, Gene isn't going to tip much of his hand, esp not on a public forum.

Alaric
02-18-2009, 3:58 PM
Is Jay la Suer "pro-gun"? I don't know--in fact, I don't know that he is either, in one sense. I have already expressed an opinion that he behaves as if he is "pro-some-guns" and "anti-some-guns."
7x57

Jay LaSuer is not anti-gun. He received an A+ from the NRA in 2004, one of only two assembly candidates in the entire state to garner the top grade that year.

Your point that you think he's anti-EBR is patently incorrect. Jay was introducing a bill to bring EBR's back to California at a time that they had been banned and there was no workable solution for most people to acquire them. The tradeoff was giving up high-cap mags, which had already been banned for most people by that point anyway. That's politics for you. You trade a little bit here to get a lot there. That Jay is being vilified for this now is unfathomable. This bill would clearly be a bad mistake today, in the age of the bullet-button, but at the time it was a solution that made sense.

M. Sage
02-18-2009, 4:14 PM
Works for me. I respect Jay's right not to issue a CCW to some idiot brawler (even if not convicted of a crime), or some other malcontent that through his actions has proven himself too irresponsible and/or immature to be trusted with a concealed firearm.

Hey, I have a friend I'd like you to meet. His name is the Fifth Amendment. I think you'd benefit from getting to know him:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You can't deprive a person of his/her rights without due process. May-issue is wrong, no matter who is wielding that kind of power. Any kind of discrimination against law-abiding citizens is wrong and Unconstitutional.

7x57
02-18-2009, 4:22 PM
I've been called a lot of things here on CG: troll, CRPA plant, "glue-huffer", so I don't care one way or the other about that.


I accept that any glue inhalation you may choose to do is strictly within the law. :D


You seem to genuinely want to get to the truth and be objective about it, but at the same time you admit lending more credit to the words of the vocal minority around here while holding others in a more suspect light.


Yep, and I try to be explicit about it. A track-record of dedication and good judgment seems like a useful predictor of future behavior and judgment to me.


That's fine though, because in the end, whatever you conclude about La Suer will be irrelevant since you won't be voting here.


Very true.


And "gun nut" is a term of endearment. FWIW.

As long as it's another gun nut saying it. :D

7x57

DedEye
02-18-2009, 4:49 PM
Oops. Puppies!

7x57

You mean like those found here (http://www.heylookapuppy.com)?

No. I saw it and it was as vague now as it was then. If Gene wants to clarify what harm will come about, then he (or you) can go right ahead. I'm all ears.

Besides that, the way I read it, the purpose of the statement was to provide a jumping off point to rant about AB2218 yet again.

Just because you aren't informed of the specifics of the plan doesn't mean it doesn't exist in detail. Telegraphing the tactics by posting them ON A PUBLIC FORUM CONSTANTLY MONITORED BY OUR OPPONENTS is not a very smart thing to do either, is it?

And by the way, I would gladly trade my 20 round mags for a standard mag release.

Good for you.

I'm not.

I'd much rather have both.

AB2218 made sense at the time when bullet buttons and OLL's were not widely known of yet and the general public generally couldn't go to a gun shop and buy any type of EBR.

No, it didn't. Why would it make sense to sacrifice long term strategy in favor of a short term compromise riddled with shortcomings?

The tradeoff was giving up high-cap mags, which had already been banned for most people by that point anyway. That's politics for you. You trade a little bit here to get a lot there. That Jay is being vilified for this now is unfathomable. This bill would clearly be a bad mistake today, in the age of the bullet-button, but at the time it was a solution that made sense.

It's not unfathomable, and it didn't make sense at the time. To criminalize possession of something that hundreds of thousands of people in this state own is far worse than any gain to be had by reauthorizing the purchase of weapons off from the ban list. When you realize that he supported this bill even after advice and warnings about the potential ramifications, it becomes even more difficult to forget and hard to forgive.

Sheriff Jay
02-18-2009, 4:57 PM
Good Evening Second Amendment Supporters-

I have been reading the on-going conversation regarding AB2218 with a great deal of interest. I have noticed that false information has been stated as fact.

AB2218 was a bill I introduced to modify California's Assault Weapons law. My staff and I worked with representatives of the gun community including the National Rifle Association (NRA), California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and Gun Owners of California (GOC). Additionally we worked with the Attorney General's office.

Due to time limitations it became obvious to me we would not be able to perfect the language in the bill within the allotted time. I therefore pulled and killed the bill. It was and still is my belief that a poorly written bill, even though the intent is good, is as dangerous as a bad bill.

Unfortunately, one person who works for the NRA (of which I am a Life Member) did not have all of the facts on the bill, including amending language and the fact that I had pulled the bill. As a result, bad information was given out.

I will quote language from a letter I received from Mr. Chris Cox, of the NRA, concerning the events surrounding AB2218. I have taken names that Mr. Cox refers to out as I have no desire to embarrass any 2nd Amendment supporters.

"Regarding Mr. XXXXX conduct surrounding the introduction and eventual withdrawal of AB 2218, I apologize for any lack of communication or miscommunication between ILA staff and you and your staff. ILA is committed to working with you on behalf of the Second Amendment and gun owners throughout California. To that end, it is my understanding that some concerns were raised over earlier versions of AB2218, especially regarding the issue of high capacity magazines, which caused some confusion. What is clear, however, is that XXXXX did not have the most current version or know of your plans to withdraw the bill when he faxed the note to your office on April 16 - a note that was entirely inappropriate to send"

"I will be directing XXX XXXXX to schedule an appointment with you and your staff as soon as possible so that he may apologize personally for the events surrounding AB2218. I hope you find time to meet with him, in the hopes of repairing some of the damage done, so that we can create a better working relationship going forward. If you would prefer that either Randy Kozuch or I also attend that meeting, we would be happy to do so."

"Again, I enjoyed our recent phone conversation, although I do regret the circumstances under which it arose. You have both my apology for the events surrounding AB2218 and my commitment to better communication in our efforts to work together going forward. Should you ever need anything from NRA-ILA, please do not hesitate to contact me."

The above statements were directly from Mr. Chris Cox, Executive Director NRA-ILA. It should be obvious that many of the statements I have read on this thread are at best, misinformation, mistakes and at worst outright FALSE.

I have in my possession all correspondence regarding AB2218. I hesitate to make them public because I do not want to chance embarrassing another member of the gun community. Those who are in the gun community must work together towards unified goals and not damage other team members.
Jay
www.SheriffJay.org

Kestryll
02-18-2009, 5:18 PM
Sheriff Jay,
since much of the sticking point is over AB2218 is there a copy of the original Bill and the later Amended Bill online somewhere for review?

If the changes are as significant as implied by both you and the NRA-ILA letter then a comparison might go a long way to reconciling some issues.

ETA: To those responding.
Feel free to state your views and opinions here but remember civility and respect for fellow members is MANDATORY.

mikehaas
02-18-2009, 6:01 PM
Also I've heard in this thread that the NRA gave LaSuer an A rating, but it was only a couple years ago that he was causing real headaches for the NRA.

Does the NRA have that short of a memory?

OR

Did LaSuer and the NRA have make-up sex?
When the truth comes out about the pretenders to the throne, it always turns to anti-NRA attacks, that NRA is wrong. The deflection is predictable. And these are not even CLOSE to the barbs that have been launched at NRA here, who hasn't said a thing.

Here is where one must be particularly sensitive to high-level politics. From my experience, NRA, especially in California, is the most professionally capable, focused and HONEST team in operating in defense of your rights. Just contrast them with the shiftiness and slickness of the Paredes GOC clan or the Lynch's of the world that will sell you out in a New York minute.

But have you ever seen NRA publicly go to war with anyone who is playing the "pro-gun game" for self-interests? Never. Oh, there are certainly parties out there that, IMO, deserve to have their "pro-gun cover" stripped away with both barrels of NRA's PR might, but unlike me, NRA is professional and focused. They keep in mind who the REAL enemy is and uderstand the damage publicy-waged "internal" fights yield. BECAUSE WHAT NRA SAYS AND DOES MATTERS MORE THAN THE PEREDES' OR LYNCHES OR EVEN THE LA SUERS.

They keep their eye on who the real enemy is - ANTI-GUNNERS - not those "less than reliable" elements of the pro-gun "side", even when attacked directly by them. The fools can certainly do damage, but NRA would create a firestorm by taking them to task.

NRA does not go to war with our own side. It's the opportunists that do that. Like the originators of the best-sounding-disaster to come along for awhile, the old "RKBA Initiative". There was a magic pill they got folks to buy. But not NRA, who knew that qualifying that turkey, had it ever qualified, was the EASY part. Once on the ballot, it would have consumed an easy $130 million, couldn't have passed, and if it HAD passed by some miracle, REMEMBER PROP 187? THAT PASSED TOO. The leaders of that movement were scoundrels too because THEY didn't tell you the whole story and caused NRA a lot of heartache in their nastiness Point is, NRA never went to war with the scoundrels, even though they (NRA) were attacked viciously. They simply put out the FACTS when asked and let gun-owners decide.

Point is, if the scoundrels in our movement (and it has its share) are to be uncovered, you have to think critically about those who claim to be pro-gun. NRA can't fight them and ant-gunners too.

You have been informed about possible serious compatibility issues between your candidate and NRA - information you did not know about. Please consider that whoever you are getting elected to whatever office, this is important informastion. This person was willing to betray some of your rights for others, even after being told of the consequences. And at best, their reign will be temporary but NRA is here to stay.

All I know is, if NRA had been found trading your currently legal access to hi-cap mags away in exchange for something else, all hidden in a "pro-gun" bill that sounds WONDERFUL, I doubt these same parties would be so forgiving so soon after learing of the deceit.

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 6:24 PM
So why is everyone so up in arms about Sheriff Hutchens in Orange County trying to repeal CCW's and restrict new permits, but they can't give a rats behind about our plight in San Diego? If they were really so concerned about the super top secret covert op plan to address ccw's at the state level, they wouldn't be involved there either.

Good point. Let me add also that this concern would/should also be pointed at any and all counties that already enjoy a liberalized CCW issuance policy if it were such a potential danger to the state on the whole.

On top of that, this race is still well over a year down the road. If the "super secret CCW plan" is so fragile as to not be able to withstand the possibility of another liberalized CCW policy enacted in San Diego county that far in the future, then this "plan" needs some serious tweaking anyway.

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 6:29 PM
Sheriff Jay,
since much of the sticking point is over AB2218 is there a copy of the original Bill and the later Amended Bill online somewhere for review?

The question was answered well enough, but the ca.gov site is archived fairly well. Is this (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040218_introduced.html) and this (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html) what you're requesting?

elSquid
02-18-2009, 6:30 PM
Your point that you think he's anti-EBR is patently incorrect. Jay was introducing a bill to bring EBR's back to California at a time that they had been banned and there was no workable solution for most people to acquire them. The tradeoff was giving up high-cap mags, which had already been banned for most people by that point anyway. That's politics for you. You trade a little bit here to get a lot there. That Jay is being vilified for this now is unfathomable. This bill would clearly be a bad mistake today, in the age of the bullet-button, but at the time it was a solution that made sense.

Ok, I read through

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html

And I guess I'm missing how high-cap mags were traded off.

Onlist gun

In 2004, the only way I could own an HK91 is if it was a registered AW. The bill changes the language to say that HK91s are only an AW:

when equipped with a magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds or when both the rifle and a large-capacity magazine are in the immediate possession of the same person

Hi caps aren't banned. This is purely an AW play.

Folks who owned registered HK91s are unaffected - they already have a legally sanctioned AW. They could continue to use their high caps.

Folks who didn't own a registered HK91 could buy one post bill, they just couldn't use a high cap ( or have it in immediate possession ) in what would otherwise be a listed AW.

The immediate possession issue is interesting, but the solution would be to not have high caps in your possession if you want to own a non-registered listed AW. Or the individual could make the other tradeoff: if you own high caps, don't own a non-registered, listed AW.

Offlist guns

OLLs would still be possible.

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon"
shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the
capacity to accept a detachable magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds and any one of the
following:


So if you have high caps, you could still own an MMG'd AR.

If you didn't have high caps, you could fully tacticool out your AR, as long as you didn't use mags greater than 10 rounds.

And here's the kicker - the immediate possession clause only applies to _listed_ rifles, not OLLs. So you could have a 30 rounder sitting by your pimped out LMT, and you'd still be legal!

I must have spent too long at work today, I'm not seeing a huge downside.

The biggest gotcha is immediate possession for non-registered, listed rifles, but that's easily avoided.

Hell, the courts might have even ruled - in one of the sure to happen constructive possession court cases - that a 30 round magazine sitting between a unregistered, listed firearm and a MMG'd OLL is legal, since the magazine might have been intended to only be used in the OLL.

:confused:

Basically, this bill would have effectively gutted the AW laws, no?

-- Michael

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 6:37 PM
Basically, this bill would have effectively gutted the AW laws, no?


This would be the problem.


All of the following specified rifles when equipped with a magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds or when both the rifle and a large-capacity magazine are in the immediate possession of the same person

I think this is going to get a lot more interesting...

-Gene

elSquid
02-18-2009, 6:48 PM
I think this is going to get a lot more interesting...


But again, that's only for an unregistered, listed firearm.

Currently, unregistered listed firearms are flat out illegal, high cap or not.

I must be slow today.

Yes, some people could get caught up in having a high cap and an unregistered, listed firearm but I don't see that as any worse than the situations today where folks have fixed mag builds > 10 rounds or have "featureless" rifles that are technically not featureless.

It's one more spot for the clueless to trip up, but it greatly expands what everyone else can do.

:confused::confused:

-- Michael

bwiese
02-18-2009, 7:33 PM
Jay,

I note you have to quote someone all the way up the pipeline (Mr. Cox) back at HQ, who obviously does not know the day-to-day details of Sacramento goings on.

When I read the text of that all I hear is, "all right boys, keep a lid on it, he's still in office and can do damage" - a glorified procedural apology. It's even further interesting that what one would think would be a self-confident person (you) would seek 'paper cover' if you were intrinsically right.

It's funny (in a sad way) you asked for various effective NRA folks to be fired.

It's even funnier that they weren't, and are still working hard.

I notice you were dancing around Torrico's mail order ammo bill too (can't remember right off the bat - 2731? 2714? )

Kathy Lynch of CAFR sure as hell didn't want us to have bulk 308 drop shipped to our door, so we'd have to buy small boxes of it at Big5 instead. Sounds like she had you in her clutches along with Gerry.

And we've already seen the damage Sam Paredes caused us with by driving the lead ammo and microstamping bills' passage at end of 2007, and this sounds like more of it.

Perhaps you just let Sam write the gun bills and want to claim credit, I dunno.

Fortunately, you're out of the Assembly and we can focus our monitoring upon Kathy Lynch, who may yet screw us further on lead ammo matters.

The ongoing gun fight in Sacramento requires bright people who don't do weird tradoffs for separated commercial interests (like the CAFR and old CRPA lobbyist).

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 7:33 PM
But again, that's only for an unregistered, listed firearm.

Currently, unregistered listed firearms are flat out illegal, high cap or not.


I think you may be missing the point of the bill. The idea was to trade making the possession of large-capacity magazines and what used to be unregisterable firearms a felony so you could have an AR with a 10 round mag.

If this bill had passed and you had any mix of an OLL, or a regged AW, and a pre-1999 30 round magazine in your gun safe you would be a felon.

-Gene

bwiese
02-18-2009, 7:36 PM
I think you may be missing the point of the bill. The idea was to trade making the possession of large-capacity magazines and what used to be unregisterable firearms a felony so you could have an AR with a 10 round mag.

If this bill had passed and you had any mix of an OLL, or a regged AW, and a pre-1999 30 round magazine in your gun safe you would be a felon.

Yup.

It sure seems that the NRA folks saw the whole OLL situation in advance and wanted to head off criminalization of it.

elSquid
02-18-2009, 7:42 PM
I think you may be missing the point of the bill. The idea was to trade making the possession of large-capacity magazines and what used to be unregisterable firearms a felony so you could have an AR with a 10 round mag.

If this bill had passed and you had any mix of an OLL, or a regged AW, and a pre-1999 30 round magazine in your gun safe you would be a felon.


Like I said, I guess I'm slow. But the bill says I would only be a felon if I had a 30rnd mag AND an unregistered, listed rifle in my safe, because the unreg, listed rifle would magically become an AW. The reg'd AW is already an AW. The OLL can't become an AW due to proximity of the magazine - it only becomes one when the high cap mag is in the magwell. Right?

-- Michael

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 7:49 PM
Like I said, I guess I'm slow. But the bill says I would only be a felon if I had a 30rnd mag AND an unregistered, listed rifle in my safe, because the unreg, listed rifle would magically become an AW. The reg'd AW is already an AW. The OLL can't become an AW due to proximity of the magazine - it only becomes one when the high cap mag is in the magwell. Right?


The point of AB2218 appears to be (absent the unicorn amendments, that - well, don't seem to exist) that you could have a listed rifle. The only problem is that if you owned any large capacity magazines for any semiautomatic centerfire rifle or handgun you'd be a felon. That's the constructive possession language in the bill. That's why its an anti gun bill. It would trade being able to buy some AWs and use them with 10 round magazines for criminalizing the possession of all detachable magazines. There would be no MMGs as you could never own or possess a large-capacity magazine. You would have had to get rid of every previously legally possessed large capacity magazine you own.

Is that clear enough?

-Gene

elSquid
02-18-2009, 8:01 PM
The point of AB2218 appears to be (absent the unicorn amendments, that - well, don't seem to exist) that you could have a listed rifle. The only problem is that if you owned any large capacity magazines for any semiautomatic centerfire rifle or handgun you'd be a felon. That's the constructive possession language in the bill. That's why its an anti gun bill. It would trade being able to buy some AWs and use them with 10 round magazines for criminalizing the possession of all detachable magazines. There would be no MMGs as you could never own or possess a large-capacity magazine. You would have had to get rid of every previously legally possessed large capacity magazine you own.

Is that clear enough?



http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html

Do you agree that the amended bill says that "immediate possession" only applies to a specific named set of firearms?

Do you agree that in that case that the magazines do not become illegal, but rather they change the status of said, named firearms?

-- Michael

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 8:11 PM
Do you agree that the amended bill says that "immediate possession" only applies to a specific named set of firearms?


No. If this bill had passed it would have banned the possession of any semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a feature and any large-capacity magazine by any person.


12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a detachable magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds and any one of the following:

After having already introduced the concept of constructive possession for named AWs and large-capacity magazines this bill creates the new concept of "has a detachable magazine with the capacity to accept". Either this bill bans constructive possession or the person who wrote it is truly incompetent.

-Gene

elSquid
02-18-2009, 8:25 PM
After having already introduced the concept of constructive possession for named AWs and large-capacity magazines this bill creates the new concept of "has a detachable magazine with the capacity to accept". Either this bill bans constructive possession or the person who wrote it is truly incompetent.


I'd agree that it's poorly worded. And IANAL. :)

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the
capacity to accept a detachable magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds and any one of the
following:

The "old" language says "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine." Which seems pretty clear.

The "new" language says "that has a detachable magazine with the capacity". This seems to say that the rifle must have currently have a magazine in the magwell, and if that magazine has the "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" then AW status may be triggered.

I'd argue that striking the first "capacity to accept" implies that an actual magazine must be involved, otherwise the legislators could have chosen to write:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the
capacity to accept a detachable magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds and any one of the
following:

Which would, in addition to being a grammatically horrible, then imply the sweeping ban. <shrug>

-- Michael

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 8:33 PM
I'd argue that striking the first "capacity to accept" implies that an actual magazine must be involved, otherwise Jay LaSuer could have chosen to write:

...

Which would, in addition to being a grammatically horrible, then imply the sweeping ban. <shrug>


Fixed it for you. It still looks to me like Jay is either incompetent or anti-gun. I mean, he did write the amendments to his own spot bill after all. "Implies" isn't much of a defense for anyone who owns a large-capacity magazine now is it?

-Gene

nick
02-18-2009, 8:37 PM
Well, forgive me for being blunt, but after having followed this discussion for a few days, all I have to say is that in practice this whole discussion on the relative merits of the issue isn't worth a rat's posterior.

All the candidates haven't announced themselves yet. When they do, you'll have a choice of candidates to support or oppose. Then you'll have to evaluate who's closer to us and vote for that person. Somehow, I doubt it'll be one of the other two candidates. Maybe it'll be some fourth candidate, which isn't the case yet.

Who did you vote for in November? Both Obama and McCain had a pretty bad 2nd Amendment records. Somehow, most of you didn't vote for Obama, whose record was abysmal. So, what's the debate about, again?

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 8:43 PM
For those of you at home keeping score.

Jay:

1. Drafted and submitted an either incompetent or anti-gun bill that has unicorn amendments. I'd like to see those amendments.

2. Jay worked actively with old CRPA to help the internet ammo ordering bill move forward. See this (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/08/another_heads_u.php):

Assemblyman Jay La Suer, CRPA and others attempted to help Mr. Torrico achieve his objective without infringing on the rights of legal purchasers to use the internet and mail service. It was hoped that eventually CRPA and others could remove their opposition and actually even support the bill.

Everybody remembers that AB-2714 passed and was only vetoed due to heavy lifting by NRA MC's and Calguns.net, right?

3. Jay implies Chris Cox supported AB-2218.

That last one is going to get interesting fast. I can read between the XXX's and between the lines...

-Gene

Alaric
02-18-2009, 8:45 PM
So, what's the debate about, again?

Hang on a sec, they're all out back with a micrometer trying to figure out who's bigger. :rolleyes:

Bottom line, Jay introduced a bill a few years back that a few gunnies here didn't like. The true merits of the bill are clearly highly debatable. Nonetheless Bill and Gene are dead set against Jay and want to ruin any chance he has of ever holding office again.

So who's running for Santa Clara County Sheriff anyway? I want to know who Bill supports so I can go crap all over him without offering any alternative. :mad:

elSquid
02-18-2009, 8:47 PM
Fixed it for you. It still looks to me like Jay is either incompetent or anti-gun. I mean, he did write the amendments to his own spot bill after all. "Implies" isn't much of a defense for anyone who owns a large-capacity magazine now is it?

All right. I surrender. :surrender:

He clearly should have used the verbiage "when equipped with a magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds " from the listed section of the bill for 12276.1. That way there would have been no room for interpretation.

-- Michael

bwiese
02-18-2009, 8:50 PM
For those of you at home keeping score.
Jay:

2. Jay worked actively with old CRPA to help the internet ammo ordering bill move forward. See this link (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/08/another_heads_u.php):

Everybody remembers that AB-2714 passed and was only vetoed due to heavy lifting by NRA MC's and Calguns.net, right?


Yes, Jay actually told Republicans to stop debate and he'd "handle it".

They were gonna make mail order ammo "just like wine". I believe there is video of LaSeur on floor saying this.

nick
02-18-2009, 8:55 PM
Hang on a sec, they're all out back with a micrometer trying to figure out who's bigger. :rolleyes:

Bottom line, Jay introduced a bill a few years back that a few gunnies here didn't like. The true merits of the bill are clearly highly debatable. Nonetheless Bill and Gene are dead set against Jay and want to ruin any chance he has of ever holding office again.

So who's running for Santa Clara County Sheriff anyway? I want to know who Bill supports so I can go crap all over him without offering any alternative. :mad:

That was a rhetorical question. I've already expressed my opinion of this discussion in the beginning of my post. To elaborate further, it reminds me of two gardeners arguing on the relative merits of turnips Vs. apples while worms are eating both.

bwiese
02-18-2009, 8:56 PM
So who's running for Santa Clara County Sheriff anyway? I want to know who Bill supports so I can go crap all over him without offering any alternative. :mad:

We don't have much choice here, admittedly.

But if Jay LaSeur were up here I'd still work against him. And I'd expect others to be mad at me if I sold out and supported him, just like I'd expect folks to be mad at me if I suddenly became quiet because DOJ gave me SBR and SBS and AW permits.

bwiese
02-18-2009, 8:57 PM
That was a rhetorical question. I've already expressed my opinion of this discussion in the beginning of my post. To elaborate further, it reminds me of two gardeners arguing on the relative merits of turnips Vs. apples while worms are eating both.

No. This is vitally important, because we need to punish those who screw us, using the umbrella of so-called "pro gun" status.

Not only for that individual, but others in place contemplating similar acitons.

It's called deterrence.

We've can deal fairly well with the antis - it's when we get screwed by our friends that its most irksome.

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 9:05 PM
Isn't it amusing how the guys who normally crap all over NRA for being the "compromise" gun lobby are ok when their guy tries to compromise with Lockyer's DOJ or Torrico? I mean, he was working hand in hand with the "no compromise gun lobby"...

-Gene

nick
02-18-2009, 9:07 PM
No. This is vitally important, because we need to punish those who screw us, using the umbrella of so-called "pro gun" status.

Not only for that individual, but others in place contemplating similar acitons.

It's called deterrence.

We've can deal fairly well with the antis - it's when we get screwed by our friends that its most irksome.

So we punish him. How are we going to punish the other 90% of the politicians in this state? How are we going to punish his two opponents? While I agree with the sentiment that punishing the politicians is a good idea, I don't think we're in the position to do so. Well, we're only in the position to punish those who give us at least some support (I'm assuming your arguments on the merits of Jay LaSuer are correct for the sake of this diatribe :)), but are not as pure as we'd wish them to be, not the rabid anti-gunners. Does that sound right to you?

And that being said, aren't we discussing supporting AG Brown for Governor, if he runs? Or am I missing something?

nick
02-18-2009, 9:10 PM
And that being said, I still think that this discussion isn't worth much, for the simple reason that we don't know what the final choices are going to be, and that the other two contenders just plain suck :)

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 9:11 PM
And that being said, aren't we discussing supporting AG Brown for Governor, if he runs? Or am I missing something?

Yeah. Sadly, Mr. Brown's record is actually better.

Mr. Brown:

Demoted Division of Firearms to Bureau status
Didn't submit Lockyer's magazine permanence rulemaking
Re-focused BoF to actually chase law breakers
Agreed to stop a Lockyer underground rulemaking
Has pulled DOJ off all gun related legislative efforts

-Gene

nick
02-18-2009, 9:20 PM
Is that all he did, or only the good side of it? :)

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 9:21 PM
We don't have much choice here, admittedly.

But if Jay LaSeur were up here I'd still work against him.

That's certainly in sharp contrast to what you said just a few months back:


Jay La Seuer is pro-gun and that indeed would help in the SDSO.

and

Given that he's likely better than the opposition we certainly can live with him, unless the opponents are showing some pro-gun leg.

and

I support JLS given the opposition.
I agree no one 'better' will come along.

Everyone is entitled to a change of heart. No matter anyway. You won't be voting here in the election (not legally anyway).

So does anyone want to tackle the Jay liberalizing CCW policy in SD will destroy the state effort rhetoric, or no? Seems to be a lot of deflection going on here.

mike_schwartz@mail.com
02-18-2009, 9:22 PM
Gentlemen,
Some of the smartest and most active people on calguns are involved in this discussion. It seems like the discussion is winding down and I just wanted to make one comment before we all go find another thread to jump all over.

I am a huge fan of sarcasm. I am not “thin skinned”. I don’t mind a little jab here and there. But I do hope that like minded gun owners can come to this board and have a true discussion…an exchange of knowledge and ideas…without having to be insulted personally, threatened, have their loyalty and motives questioned, or worry about a host of other negative things that happened during this thread.

If this board cannot be used to hash out issues from different angles to further the cause and all discussions turn as bloody as a pack of rabid dogs fighting over the last scrap of meat...then what’s the use?

We are all in this together and we all have the same goal. Unless their e-mail ends with “@bradycampaign.org”, if they are spending time on this board, they are probably all for the right to keep and bear arms. We’re all frustrated...but gees, a little more respect and a little less hostility towards each other. We're simply exchanging information.


-Michael

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 9:23 PM
So does anyone want to tackle the Jay liberalizing CCW policy in SD will destroy the state effort rhetoric, or no? Seems to be a lot of deflection going on here.

Politicians who are supposedly on our side don't like to actually, you know, sponsor legislation that we need to introduce. If this politician who is supposedly pro-gun gets away with actually sponsoring anti-gun legislation, how do you think we're going to get the supposedly pro-gun to actually carry pro-gun bills in Sacramento?

-Gene

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 9:24 PM
So who's running for Santa Clara County Sheriff anyway? I want to know who Bill supports so I can go crap all over him without offering any alternative. :mad:

I suspect you're being facetious. But given the same situation, I would defer to the wants and desires of the inhabitants in the county and wish them good luck in their endeavor... even if I thought their guy sucked. But that's just how I am.

Alaric
02-18-2009, 9:24 PM
Isn't it amusing how the guys who normally crap all over NRA for being the "compromise" gun lobby are ok when their guy tries to compromise with Lockyer's DOJ or Torrico? I mean, he was working hand in hand with the "no compromise gun lobby"...


Speaking for myself, I'm an NRA member and I have never, not once, crapped on the NRA.

I support the best candidate we have in the race, and that candidate is LaSuer.

And that being said, I still think that this discussion isn't worth much, for the simple reason that we don't know what the final choices are going to be, and that the other two contenders just plain suck :)

With the current slate of strong candidates, there aren't likely to be any more joining the race.

It's AMAZING that in a coastal urban California county in this day and age we have any viable pro-ccw candidate on the ticket. The fact we can't seem to set aside our old grievances and come together to support him makes me angry. It also makes me very suspicious of the motives of those who fight against a Sheriff's candidate in a county 500 miles away from them. If Jay were running for Assembly again, I could see their point perhaps, but not when it comes to a county Sheriffs race. If we can't overcome our desire for personal vendettas, we may as well line up to surrender our guns at the next roundup, cause our rights aren't going to be around much longer at this rate.

wildhawker
02-18-2009, 9:25 PM
Hang on a sec, they're all out back with a micrometer trying to figure out who's bigger. :rolleyes:

Bottom line, Jay introduced a bill a few years back that a few gunnies here didn't like. The true merits of the bill are clearly highly debatable. Nonetheless Bill and Gene are dead set against Jay and want to ruin any chance he has of ever holding office again.

So who's running for Santa Clara County Sheriff anyway? I want to know who Bill supports so I can go crap all over him without offering any alternative. :mad:

I'd like to offer my spare bedroom and 3 hot meals if you're ever interested in coming up to campaign with us for any of our local pro-2A candidates.

Ironically, "highly debatable" also seems to define other aspects of Mr. LaSuer's candidacy (and history as a pol); notwitstanding these "debatable" aspects, the proffered evidence of baptism and repentance in previous posts (and Mr. LaSuer's lack thereof in his own recent post) seem to me as contradictory and worthy of further clarification.

Maybe the energy being expended in this effort to defend a "highly debatable" candidate could (should?) be directed towards finding a more appropriate candidate.

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 9:26 PM
Politicians who are supposedly on our side don't like to actually, you know, sponsor legislation that we need to introduce. If this politician who is supposedly pro-gun gets away with actually sponsoring anti-gun legislation, how do you think we're going to get the supposedly pro-gun to actually carry pro-gun bills in Sacramento?

-Gene

So like I said, it's just a philosophical argument. It's not anything concrete... no "super secret plan" that will be disrupted... nothing of the sort that was suggested.

I hope a few people who took me to task over this will read your comments and take note of how it was disingenuously presented otherwise.

nick
02-18-2009, 9:28 PM
Gentlemen,
Some of the smartest and most active people on calguns are involved in this discussion. It seems like the discussion is winding down and I just wanted to make one comment before we all go find another thread to jump all over.

I am a huge fan of sarcasm. I am not “thin skinned”. I don’t mind a little jab here and there. But I do hope that like minded gun owners can come to this board and have a true discussion…an exchange of knowledge and ideas…without having to be insulted personally, threatened, have their loyalty and motives questioned, or worry about a host of other negative things that happened during this thread.

If this board cannot be used to hash out issues from different angles to further the cause and all discussions turn as bloody as a pack of rabid dogs fighting over the last scrap of meat...then what’s the use?

We are all in this together and we all have the same goal. Unless their e-mail ends with “@bradycampaign.org”, if they are spending time on this board, they are probably all for the right to keep and bear arms. We’re all frustrated...but gees, a little more respect and a little less hostility towards each other. We're simply exchanging information.


-Michael


Well said.

hoffmang
02-18-2009, 9:31 PM
So like I said, it's just a philosophical argument. It's not anything concrete... no "super secret plan" that will be disrupted... nothing of the sort that was suggested.

I hope a few people who took me to task over this will read your comments and take note of how it was disingenuously presented otherwise.

Let's see if you move the goal posts again.

Fact: We're having a difficult time getting the supposedly pro-gun legislators to carry bills.

Fact: When we execute a coming litigation strategy, we will need to be able to move legislation depending on exactly how the court reacts.

Fact: California has term limits.

Fact: The only way we voters can exert any pull on the guys who ask for our money and our support but then do nothing or bad things is to hold them to task in all future elections.

That's not a philosophy - it is a strategy and tactics.

Is your philosophy to forgive and forget either incompetence or malevolence?

-Gene

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 9:32 PM
Just because you aren't informed of the specifics of the plan doesn't mean it doesn't exist in detail. Telegraphing the tactics by posting them ON A PUBLIC FORUM CONSTANTLY MONITORED BY OUR OPPONENTS is not a very smart thing to do either, is it?

I never said that this "plan" didn't exist. But Gene just did.

wildhawker
02-18-2009, 9:35 PM
It also makes me very suspicious of the motives of those who fight against a Sheriff's candidate in a county 500 miles away from them.

Following your logic, should we non-OC residents become disinterested in the Hutchens CCW issue, since "its not my dog, and not my hunt"? Let me know, and I'll make sure to qualify all future RKBA efforts and NRA/CRPA/CGF donations to "north of Grapevine"-issues only... I wouldn't want my motives called into question. What, exactly, do you think the motives of Bill, Gene and others here are if not the betterment and furtherance of our rights?

These issues transcend county jurisdictions; we of all people should know that.

nick
02-18-2009, 9:37 PM
It's AMAZING that in a coastal urban California county in this day and age we have any viable pro-ccw candidate on the ticket. The fact we can't seem to set aside our old grievances and come together to support him makes me angry. It also makes me very suspicious of the motives of those who fight against a Sheriff's candidate in a county 500 miles away from them. If Jay were running for Assembly again, I could see their point perhaps, but not when it comes to a county Sheriffs race. If we can't overcome our desire for personal vendettas, we may as well line up to surrender our guns at the next roundup, cause our rights aren't going to be around much longer at this rate.

I wouldn't discount their opinion lightly though, or suspect them of some unseemly motives lightly, either. I think, they've proven their credentials repeatedly. One may disagree with what they're saying, but one can't possibly dismiss their opinion easily. They do plan ahead, from what I've seen, and they usually have some reason for doing/saying what they're doing and saying, and it's quite possible that this election may affect something. However, not having the information they may have, and only knowing what little I know, I disagree with their approach to this. However, the same applies to being suspicious of Gene and Bill's motives, for as far as I know they've proven themselves quite well so far, don't you think. I think, we should tone the rhetoric down a notch and start thinking and discussing rather than arguing.

Bill_in_SD
02-18-2009, 9:38 PM
So, does anyone have any history on Bruce Ruff
-and-
how do we get Spanos to support the guy we want? (like he did Kolender)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060515-9999-1m15sheriff.html

http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/102.page

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 9:40 PM
What, exactly, do you think the motives of Bill, Gene and others here are if not the betterment and furtherance of our rights?

Personal vendetta? I don't know. Look how much effort they've poured into this though and for what? To teach someone a lesson... at the expense of San Diego gunnies.

With friends like these...

These issues transcend county jurisdictions; we of all people should know that.

As sheriff, I can guarantee you that La Suer won't be authoring anymore legislation so his role will be well-confined to the county. That's a fact.

oaklander
02-18-2009, 9:41 PM
Jay,

I just read AB 2218, as amended. I am, for the life of me, trying to figure out what you were thinking when you wrote it.

To me, it looks completely like something that an ANTI-gunner would write.

Could you clarify, in this thread, the purpose behind AB 2218?

CoinStar
02-18-2009, 9:43 PM
Is your philosophy to forgive and forget either incompetence or malevolence?

When the "offending" issues are being blown out of proportion like they are here, to the point of outright lies, yes. Yes it is.

oaklander
02-18-2009, 9:45 PM
When the "offending" issues are being blown out of proportion like they are here, to the point of outright lies, yes. Yes it is.

You chose your words poorly.

nick
02-18-2009, 9:47 PM
Alright, people, anyone got a Vz. 24 for sale?