PDA

View Full Version : AB962 - ballot initiative?


aethyr
09-11-2009, 8:24 PM
I'm sorry for yet another thread on this, but so far I haven't seen much other than the justified ranting about its passage.

I think we need to consider the very likely possibility that the governor will sign it and it will inevitably become law.

So could we gather enough signatures and put this on the ballot to undo AB962?

1859sharps
09-11-2009, 8:33 PM
The governor signing is not a fore gone conclusion. he may, he may not. while Arnold has signed gun control, he has vetoed it as well.

trying to repeal this by ballet, should it become law, isn't the most effective/efficient method.

SwissFluCase
09-11-2009, 8:41 PM
We'll be better off fighting it in the courts if the Governer signs them. A fundmental right should not be subject to a popular vote - it is a fundamental right, after all.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Shotgun Man
09-11-2009, 9:03 PM
We'll be better off fighting it in the courts if the Governer signs them. A fundmental right should not be subject to a popular vote - it is a fundamental right, after all.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Yeah, fight it in the courts. Then after victory, pro-gun politicians should take to the pulpit and denounce all the politicians who conspired to violate our constitutional rights.

Equate it to segregation and how politicians strived to deny others, too, of their constitutional rights.

SwissFluCase
09-11-2009, 9:12 PM
Yeah, fight it in the courts. Then after victory, pro-gun politicians should take to the pulpit and denounce all the politicians who conspired to violate our constitutional rights.

Equate it to segregation and how politicians strived to deny others, too, of their constitutional rights.

Well said.

Regards,


SwissFLuCase

nick
09-11-2009, 9:27 PM
We'll be better off fighting it in the courts if the Governer signs them. A fundmental right should not be subject to a popular vote - it is a fundamental right, after all.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

That's correct.

dantodd
09-11-2009, 9:28 PM
I'm sorry for yet another thread on this, but so far I haven't seen much other than the justified ranting about its passage.

I think we need to consider the very likely possibility that the governor will sign it and it will inevitably become law.

So could we gather enough signatures and put this on the ballot to undo AB962?

No, we could not gather enough signatures without spending literally ten million dollars. Even if someone ponied up the $10M it would, in all likelihood not pass in California. Did you not pay attention to the last election? Do you think the majority of Californians who re-elect Boxer and Feinstein don't know they are gun grabbers?

cbn620
09-11-2009, 9:33 PM
The governor signing is not a fore gone conclusion. he may, he may not. while Arnold has signed gun control, he has vetoed it as well.

trying to repeal this by ballet, should it become law, isn't the most effective/efficient method.

Nope, but the Mormons sure put a hole in gay marriage that way. I'm not saying it's the most or even effective at all, but I for one will organize petitions if it comes to that. By any means necessary, and by any means available.

Dark Paladin
09-11-2009, 9:37 PM
I'm sorry for yet another thread on this, but so far I haven't seen much other than the justified ranting about its passage.

I think we need to consider the very likely possibility that the governor will sign it and it will inevitably become law.

So could we gather enough signatures and put this on the ballot to undo AB962?

Why not promote a initiative that penalizes politicians personally who waste public resources in drafting legislation that are full of FAIL? We skirt the contentious 2A issue AND drive a wooden stake straight into the heart of the problem.

bodger
09-11-2009, 9:55 PM
Nope, but the Mormons sure put a hole in gay marriage that way. I'm not saying it's the most or even effective at all, but I for one will organize petitions if it comes to that. By any means necessary, and by any means available.


I'd have a tough time in my district getting sigs on a pro 2A petition of any kind.

That's how jag-offs like Feuer get elected from here. GUNS = BAD.
Forget the Constitution.
It's for the little children that we violate your rights.

SwissFluCase
09-11-2009, 9:55 PM
Why not promote a initiative that penalizes politicians personally who waste public resources in drafting legislation that are full of FAIL? We skirt the contentious 2A issue AND drive a wooden stake straight into the heart of the problem.

We tried to do that with term limts. What we got was Spiegelman's Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster) as another poster quite eloquently pointed out.

I have a feeling that if the budget fiasco doesn't help these politians out the door by itself, nothing will.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

G17GUY
09-11-2009, 10:26 PM
Even if this gets challenged in court does not mean we will prevail.

I worry this may fall under reasonable restrictions.

Waiting for a statement from one of the "right people".

Dark Paladin
09-11-2009, 10:39 PM
We tried to do that with term limts. What we got was Spiegelman's Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster) as another poster quite eloquently pointed out.

I have a feeling that if the budget fiasco doesn't help these politians out the door by itself, nothing will.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Ohhhh no. . . I don't mean term limits. I mean financial and personal penalties for misusing public funds and trust. The gloves are coming off. No quarters.

cornflake
09-12-2009, 12:30 AM
We'll be better off fighting it in the courts if the Governer signs them. A fundmental right should not be subject to a popular vote - it is a fundamental right, after all.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

But didn't California just ban same sex marriage by popular vote last year??? The right to marry another person is also fundamental right.

-

cousinkix1953
09-12-2009, 12:57 AM
We'll be better off fighting it in the courts if the Governer signs them. A fundmental right should not be subject to a popular vote - it is a fundamental right, after all.

Regards,

SwissFluCase
I agree! Most of those stores stock only the popular calibers; because they sell quickly. They are not obligated to stock ammo that isn't hugely profitable. And they don't! First we try to buy our oddball ammo in the stores. Then we try to buy it on line and can't get it shipped to our addresses. A pile of complaints are useful in a class action lawsuit. Your 2nd Amendment rights are violated; when you cannot purchase ammo, for a gun that you legally own!

Geoff Metcalf couldn't even get enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot; when tried to repeal the Roos-Robert law in the 90s. Not enough people cared then. It's been mostly down hill since then except for the Nordyke decision...

SwissFluCase
09-12-2009, 9:43 AM
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

But didn't California just ban same sex marriage by popular vote last year??? The right to marry another person is also fundamental right.

-

I had a big problem with that initiative. It should have been tossed by the courts before it made it to the ballot. We have too many people who think that "majority rules" is what runs a republic. Rights cannot be subject to majority rule. The right to defend oneself and the right to marry both predate the establishment of our legal system.

So what happens if an initiative is put on the ballot to ban, say, interracial marriage, or to force a certain class of people to live in designated areas? Is that right becuase majority rules? At some point there has to be a limit as to what an emotionally charged public can do.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
09-12-2009, 9:45 AM
I agree! Most of those stores stock only the popular calibers; because they sell quickly. They are not obligated to stock ammo that isn't hugely profitable. And they don't! First we try to buy our oddball ammo in the stores. Then we try to buy it on line and can't get it shipped to our addresses. A pile of complaints are useful in a class action lawsuit. Your 2nd Amendment rights are violated; when you cannot purchase ammo, for a gun that you legally own!

I really have to wonder if CAFR had a hand in this. Horse trading?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Shotgun Man
09-12-2009, 12:12 PM
I had a big problem with that initiative. It should have been tossed by the courts before it made it to the ballot. We have too many people who think that "majority rules" is what runs a republic. Rights cannot be subject to majority rule. The right to defend oneself and the right to marry both predate the establishment of our legal system.

So what happens if an initiative is put on the ballot to ban, say, interracial marriage, or to force a certain class of people to live in designated areas? Is that right becuase majority rules? At some point there has to be a limit as to what an emotionally charged public can do.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

In theory, I'm all for gay marriages.

However, it is flawed reasoning to equate the RKBA to the right to marry.

Imagine showing up at the State House in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 saying yeah, this is my gay lover who I want to marry, and I want you to enshrine this right in the constitution.

You'd be rightfully laughed out of town.

aethyr
09-12-2009, 1:40 PM
We'll be better off fighting it in the courts if the Governer signs them. A fundmental right should not be subject to a popular vote - it is a fundamental right, after all.

Regards,
SwissFluCase

That ten million dollars would be better spent educating the public about the truth.

I agree its a fundamental right, and that in principle it should be fought in the courts. But if the courts don't rule correctly, then what other choice do we have?

And I claim that a ballot initiative is how you educate the public. It gets statewide, maybe even national exposure. So many gun control laws in this state just slip under the radar and most people don't even realize it. But now, we put it on the ballot, bring it to the center stage, and let there be debates about it. The more exposure the issue gets, the more people will gradually learn more about it.

SwissFluCase
09-12-2009, 1:52 PM
I agree its a fundamental right, and that in principle it should be fought in the courts. But if the courts don't rule correctly, then what other choice do we have?

And I claim that a ballot initiative is how you educate the public. It gets statewide, maybe even national exposure. So many gun control laws in this state just slip under the radar and most people don't even realize it. But now, we put it on the ballot, bring it to the center stage, and let there be debates about it. The more exposure the issue gets, the more people will gradually learn more about it.

The important thing is that you first go through the system. If that doesn't work you can try the ballot box. If things get too extreme, there is the "other" box. Ultimately, one must stand up and claim that right by excercising it. Think of marijuana. The federal government has no authority to outlaw that plant. We, the people, have the right to use it. Right now, that right has been denied at all levels. In this case a ballot initiative put the first chink in the government's armor. The important thing is, is that we had nothing to lose at the ballot box at that point. We had nothing.

We have plenty to lose with RKBA, however, as we have the high ground and forward momentum. After Heller is incorporated, this law will be struck.

The turd in the punch bowl that no one mentions is simply ignoring the law. That is how the marijuana activists are doing their thing. They have done it at a great cost, however. We are not that desparate.

I think that getting guns in people's hands is a better way of educating the public. It brings more people in.

Regards,


SwissFluCase