PDA

View Full Version : Californians about new Florida gun law


Inoxmark
05-14-2005, 8:40 PM
Two weeks ago Contra Costa Times asked for readers' opinions about new Florida "right to self-defense" law. Thirteen letters were printed in today's paper, and I was extremely surprised with the results: pro-gun: 10, anti:3. One of the three was not objecting to the core idea, just to the lack of training requirements, so the score could be 11:2 .
Maybe californians are not hopelessly lost after all?

Turbinator
05-15-2005, 12:11 AM
Maybe we're not completely hopelessly lost, but recent CA voting patterns don't seem to give us much optimism for the future.

I just saw some dude with a bumper sticker the other day - "Proud to be a Democrat"

Yuck!

Turby

Bling Bling
05-15-2005, 12:17 PM
Well maybe the strategy here is to get Dems to support our cause. Let's face it, CA will be a blue state for a VERY long time. It must be pretty embarrassing for the Dems when Gore lost his home state of TN mostly because his stupid ideas on gun control. The Dems are getting spanked everywhere but here and NYC. I think they'd be desparate to re-think their strategy. I say new Dems not the old hags (Feinstein and Boxer think they are too good to represent their constituency and are more concerned with their own glory). I think most Californians would stand behind gun rights if it didn't mean it was behind a republican. Republicans seem to be a stigma in this state ever since prop 187.

Ford8N
05-15-2005, 3:22 PM
I would still rather have "evil black guns" than CCW. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Charliegone
05-15-2005, 6:11 PM
Yup. Inner breeding with the democrats is the best solution. People here in California, especially the majority of minorities will always vote democrat. It is just better to be more convincing to them and to lets say "intergrate" ourselves in the democratic party. This is how it is done...

Bling Bling
05-15-2005, 9:29 PM
I think very few politicians want to be anti-gun, but are scared of the media backlash by saying "yeah guns". So they stay away from the topic until it's mentioned, by that time they are pigeon holed into saying guns are bad.

I don't know what to think about Arnie though. He could've been our man. But picked the wrong issue to Dem align on (gun control), but I think he's doing good things for the state. The good news is that he doesn't have any problems taking back his own words if it proves to be best for CA. I doubt that means flip flopping on gun control, but you never know what to think.

05-16-2005, 1:35 PM
Originally posted by Inoxmark:
Two weeks ago Contra Costa Times asked for readers' opinions about new Florida "right to self-defense" law. Thirteen letters were printed in today's paper, and I was extremely surprised with the results: pro-gun: 10, anti:3. One of the three was not objecting to the core idea, just to the lack of training requirements, so the score could be 11:2 .
Maybe californians are not hopelessly lost after all?

Did the Times point out that the change in Florida's law put that state roughly in line with how Castle Doctrine is defined here at home in California (as far as I could tell)?

I was breifly discussing this elsewhere, and I was quite surprised that few, if any, realized that California law did not mandate that a person "retreat" if possible in their own dwelling when faced with an imminent threat to their safety.

05-16-2005, 1:47 PM
Originally posted by Bling Bling:
I don't know what to think about Arnie though. He could've been our man. But picked the wrong issue to Dem align on (gun control), but I think he's doing good things for the state. <span class="ev_code_red">The good news is that he doesn't have any problems taking back his own words if it proves to be best for CA.</span>

Right, like not accepting money from "special interests".

Hmmm... (http://www.arnoldwatch.org/special_interests/index.html)

Although, the term itself ("special interests") in Schwarzenegger's mind is one that can be selectively used to fit his own needs.
If it's a public employees union or an Indian tribe, then it's a "special interest" yet the one's contributing to his war chest (and those funding his so-called "reform initiatives") are exempt from the charge.

Yes indeed, Arnold is the poltician that can't be bought...
http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I doubt that means flip flopping on gun control, but you never know what to think.

His position on guns was clear before he announced his candidacy for the recall election. He never set out to be our "friend" and will not proactively assist our efforts.

Inoxmark
05-16-2005, 5:17 PM
Did the Times point out that the change in Florida's law put that state roughly in line with how Castle Doctrine is defined here at home in California (as far as I could tell)?
I might be mistaken here, but from what I read about the new FL law it removes requirement to retreat from the threat at any public place. They already had a "no-retreat" law at residences, places of work and cars.

05-16-2005, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Inoxmark:
I might be mistaken here, but from what I read about the new FL law it removes requirement to retreat from the threat at any public place. They already had a "no-retreat" law at residences, places of work and cars.

I could only find a this (http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?File=sb0436.html&Directory=session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/html&Tab=session&Submenu=1) and more succinctly, this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1396635/posts). (Truth: I don't keep up too well on FL law as our own tyrannical state government presents a larger, more pressing challenge. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

The other discussion where this came up seemed to focus more on the immunity issues with the new law.

(1) A person who uses force as described in s.10 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.

This seemed to scare the ninnies who would rather be a good victim than defend themselves or their families.

Ninnies- go figure...

http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bg
05-17-2005, 9:30 AM
I believe one answer is to support AS' plan for
re-districting. Remember Davis was the one
behind the current plan. Having retired judges
do it may swing things back into a more sensible
plan. I also think not all things Dems bring to
the table are bad, buth their moronic stance
on the gun banishment, anti self=defense front
outweighs 99% of that party's agenda for me.

Unlike the Dems down in Tx who ran off
with their tails betwen their legs to
Ok when the GOP wanted to go with a
new redistricting plan, the GOP here
though outnumbered stayed and fought
to try to keep a balance.

It didn't pan out, but they didn't run
off like cowards to another state holding
up state business as did the Tx Dems.