PDA

View Full Version : Ways bans get put together: Roberti-Roos insights


lomalinda
05-22-2009, 9:01 AM
Perhaps this is old, but it was interesting that it was posted by someone in Texas, of all places.

Knowing how they work helps foil their plans:

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/United%20States/Trust%20the%20Government/Insight%20into%20Anti-Legislation

elenius
05-22-2009, 9:17 AM
Interesting read. Some highlights:


* Most if not all of the principal players in crafting the legislation
had absolutely no knowledge of firearms.

...

A lot of people worked very hard to make the Roberti/Roos Act successful.
Those with some knowledge of firearms felt the task was an impossibility.
Those with little or no knowledge of the subject were ever emboldened. As
Montaingue said "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least
known." The more our staff has worked with the legislation the more
confused they have become. How the average cop on the beat or Joe "Six
Pack" who owns one of the weapons will ever figure it all out escapes me.
There is no simple fix. Publication of a manual for public or law
enforcement use will require that we reach some yet unreached conclusion
about which weapons are covered.

We can effectively control all semi-automatic weapons or leave them all
alone. What I don't think we can accomplish is proper
implementation of a vague and ambiguous law.


I wonder if this might be useful in attacking the law.

bwiese
05-22-2009, 9:29 AM
I posted this about a year ago.

Yes, it can be useful supplemental material as we take on R/R and SB23 in the future.

Do note Steve Helsley is a pro-gun guy (now involved in CA gun rights orgs) that rotated out of DOJ LE Div/Narcotics into the DOJ BCIA/Firearms group, and suddently had the distasteful job of drawing up the R-R list. ("BCIA" = Bureau of Criminal Information & Apprehension)

To prevent further backchat about his motivations: if he had not done it, someone else would've and he'd've been shoved out earlier, making way for an even earlier introduction of the Iggys, etc.

And these other folks might well've done a "worse" job of it to us. We should be grateful for his use of "series" language, too.

(Contrast the construction of the R/R list vs the Kasler list.)

nick
05-22-2009, 9:47 AM
As no specifically defined problem drove our
efforts, such an odd collection should not be surprising.


I like that one.

motorhead
05-22-2009, 10:08 AM
their ignorance and ineptitude has served us well so far. i'm sure it'll continue to be an asset in the future.

lomalinda
05-22-2009, 10:29 AM
"As no specifically defined problem drove our
efforts, such an odd collection should not be surprising."

Yes, it's fascinating to see someone from within acknowledge the random nature of the items listed and the mentality--or lack thereof--of some of those who assembled the list.

rabagley
05-22-2009, 12:47 PM
Basically, the overall goal was to ban guns that were politically vulnerable. Politically vulnerable means that two conditions must be met: 1) there are not enough owners of that type/model/etc. firearm to be a political threat and 2) it must be possible to make an claim to the uninformed populace about the special danger of that type/model/etc. firearm over other firearms*. Wash, rinse, repeat, along with other cultural shifts to make hunting less popular and you've eventually banned all guns.

* The case for "special danger" is often lies made from whole cloth while the appearance of the firearm (EBR, AK) is relied on for an appeal to fear in the uninformed population.

Even with the popularity of OLL's and AK variants in CA, I suspect that AR's and AK's are still vulnerable to the same kind of effort because (2) is just as likely as ever (AK's and AR's are still the poster boys for "bad" guns due to their common presence in images of police/military/pirates/thugs/etc.) and especially for AR's, the .223 round is not effective/popular for hunting. All of us know that the 2A isn't about hunting, but most politicians won't risk offending hunters, which means that .223/5.56 rifles aren't protected in this way.

Personally, I think we could be reducing the risk of future bans on AR's/AK's by doing even more to get the word out about legal configurations, and specifically buying and using AR's in alternative calibers (both hunting appropriate and .22LR).

Librarian
05-22-2009, 1:28 PM
Similar information at
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws

motorhead
05-22-2009, 8:02 PM
yup. imagine a photo of osama bin laden holding a mini 14. just aint evil enough.

cousinkix1953
05-22-2009, 11:02 PM
I actually heard Roberti say that getting rid of the M-1 carbine, Mini 14 and M-1A would be impossible; because too many people already owned. Even though, they'll still harass you for having an original GI surplus 15 rd magazine for an original surplus carbine.

Or we'll let you own a Corvette and ban the car keys; so an idiot doesn't hit 140 MPH on I-5...

Can'thavenuthingood
05-23-2009, 5:58 AM
Basically, the overall goal was to ban guns that were politically vulnerable. Politically vulnerable means that two conditions must be met: 1) there are not enough owners of that type/model/etc. firearm to be a political threat and 2) it must be possible to make an claim to the uninformed populace about the special danger of that type/model/etc. firearm over other firearms*. Wash, rinse, repeat, along with other cultural shifts to make hunting less popular and you've eventually banned all guns.............



I think to overcome this is our primary mission. Calguns ought to be known for its current information and knowledge base.

The Calguns booth Volunteers have been doing a superb job of teaching and informing the uninformed populace about the vagaries of California gun laws and unraveling the knot of legislated complexities that comes with gun ownership.
Volunteers bring in their personal weapons to demonstrate to folks how the laws apply to the weapons.

Through our efforts here we are increasing the ranks of knowledgeable gun owners as well as politically active gun owners.

Here we gather and muster.

Vick

B Strong
05-23-2009, 6:01 AM
Thanks for the find on this one.

If any of you guys remember, Art Agnos had been trying to get his AW ban legislation through, AB (something or other, I can't remember the bill number) for a couple of sessions before the Stockton shootings.

It went nowhere.

All it took was one deranged sick-o for the legislature to stampede the sheep.

TatankaGap
05-23-2009, 10:48 AM
Now that the 2A has been incorporated to CA via Nordyke, it is recognized as a fundamental right.

The gov't is not allowed to infringe on a fundamental right unless it meets the so-called 'strict scrutiny' test - it has a compelling gov't purpose and the method of satisfying such purpose is reasonably related to the purpose and is the least restrictive on the fundamental right of the possible methods for satisfying the purpose -

So, according to the paper which discusses the intentional ignoring of forensic evidence and the banning of functionally equivalent guns while not banning others (the AK vs M-14) indicate that even if the gov't purpose is compelling, it is clear that:

1) the method of satisfying the purpose is NOT reasonably related to the purpose because of lack of forensic evidence and intentionally turning a blind eye to such forensic evidence because it would not support the political purposes -

2) the method is not the least restrictive method to achieve the purpose -

** IMHO, FWIW, this is a good one for whomever takes it on - though it will take some money and legal firepower and an ideal plaintiff - maybe when CD Michel and SAF get done with the SF local laws, they can get started with overturning the CA Roberti/Roos - :cool2:

sreiter
05-23-2009, 11:45 AM
Basically, the overall goal was to ban guns that were politically vulnerable. Politically vulnerable means that two conditions must be met: 1) there are not enough owners of that type/model/etc. firearm to be a political threat and 2) it must be possible to make an claim to the uninformed populace about the special danger of that type/model/etc. firearm over other firearms*. Wash, rinse, repeat, along with other cultural shifts to make hunting less popular and you've eventually banned all guns.

* The case for "special danger" is often lies made from whole cloth while the appearance of the firearm (EBR, AK) is relied on for an appeal to fear in the uninformed population.

Even with the popularity of OLL's and AK variants in CA, I suspect that AR's and AK's are still vulnerable to the same kind of effort because (2) is just as likely as ever (AK's and AR's are still the poster boys for "bad" guns due to their common presence in images of police/military/pirates/thugs/etc.) and especially for AR's, the .223 round is not effective/popular for hunting. All of us know that the 2A isn't about hunting, but most politicians won't risk offending hunters, which means that .223/5.56 rifles aren't protected in this way.

Personally, I think we could be reducing the risk of future bans on AR's/AK's by doing even more to get the word out about legal configurations, and specifically buying and using AR's in alternative calibers (both hunting appropriate and .22LR).

in a recent "field and stream" article on the 25 best AR's (see rifle forum) there are several hunting models avail from Remington - real tree/mosey oak camo and all

umoja
05-23-2009, 7:59 PM
* Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensic
laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the
legislation would be based (Attachment 2).


Sometimes I can't believe that a politician would know this and continue with what they are doing.

...but then I remember that they are politicians :p