PDA

View Full Version : AG Brown up 20% over Newsom; antigunner Tom Campbell pulling ahead for Repubs


bwiese
10-08-2009, 8:11 AM
at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/08/MN9U1A2EAQ.DTL&tsp=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll: Brown up 20 Percent on Newsom

Whitman, Campbell in dead heat, poll shows

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Thursday, October 8, 2009


Dark horse GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Campbell, who is running a shoestring campaign, is in a dead heat with billionaire former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, a new Field Poll shows.

In the Democratic race, Attorney General Jerry Brown has doubled his lead over San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, according to the poll released today.

Campbell, a former South Bay congressman who has proposed detailed solutions to the state's biggest problem, its budget, is the strongest of three Republican candidates in head-to-head matchups against Brown or Newsom. In addition, Campbell leads Whitman among younger voters and in Northern California, where she was a high-tech industry leader.

Brown,California's governor from 1975 to 1983 who last week launched an exploratory committee to seek a third term, has expanded his 10-point lead over Newsom in March to a whopping 47 percent to 27 percent, the poll shows.

The San Francisco mayor, despite spending millions of dollars on a campaign including statewide town hall meetings, has the most negative image of any of the 2010 gubernatorial candidates, according to the statewide survey, conducted by the Field Research Corp., from Sept. 18 to Oct. 5.

Whitman has 22 percent of the likely Republican primary vote, while Campbell has 20 percent - well within the poll's margin of error. State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a multimillionaire former tech executive, is a distant third with 9 percent.

Undecided GOP

Half the GOP voters surveyed are undecided about their preference in the June primary. But if the election were held today, Brown or Newsom would beat any of the three Republican candidates, the poll shows. Among Democratic primary voters, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein would beat the two Democratic candidates if she were in the race, with 40 percent of the vote compared with 27 percent for Brown and 16 percent for Newsom.

Younger voters - 18 to 49 years old - prefer Campbell and Newsom over their rivals, in part because those candidates are emphasizing new media and social networking. "I've done all I can do to deal with substance, particularly on the economic side - and it appears to be working," Campbell said Wednesday in response to the survey.

Campbell was the state budget director during Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's first two years in office and is the only gubernatorial candidate to issue a detailed plan to fix the state budget and reform health care in California.

He is planning his seventh statewide "tele-town hall," Internet forums that 100,000 state voters have participated in so far, he said.

Negative numbers

Newsom, meanwhile, has seen his negative image increase from 35 percent in March to 40 percent now - a result mostly of a huge shift among Republicans who overwhelmingly see him in a negative light. GOP leaders have skewered Newsom for his city policies in support of same-sex marriage, universal health care and reducing greenhouse gases. Newsom downplayed the poll results Wednesday, saying there were no surprises because he is "running against a name that's been around for 40 years."

"My name ID isn't close to Jerry Brown's," Newsom said.

Ads have yet to air

Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said the survey results reflect a race that has not yet played out on the state's airwaves.

That means Campbell, with just $300,000 in his campaign war chest, faces TV ads and attacks from his wealthy competitors: Whitman spent $6 million on her campaign in the first six months of this year and put $15 million of her own money in the campaign in July; and Poizner has $4.2 million in campaign funds.

"The others start to run their multimedia market TV ad campaigns, and he won't be able to," DiCamillo said. "For voters in California, that's how they learn who the candidates are."

Newsom has $1.7 million in campaign funds and doesn't appear to be gaining on Brown, who has banked more than $7 million as of the last reporting period on June 30.

The current profile of the former two-term governor, who is "leading by a comfortable margin and whose strongest support is from older voters, is as solid as you can get," DiCamillo said.

The poll of 1,005 registered California voters - including 373 likely GOP primary voters and 496 likely Democratic primary voters - was taken between Sept. 18 and Oct. 5. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Chronicle political writers Joe Garofoli and Heather Knight contributed
to this report. E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.

* * * * * * * * * *

rolo
10-08-2009, 9:00 AM
I, for one, am looking forward to seeing Jerry Brown run again. I'd be sincerely disappointed if he didn't. You don't pass up an opportunity like he has and keep my respect. He's already got my vote based upon 2nd amendment issues, considering the track record of the other candidates.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 9:24 AM
In regards to Jerry Brown...

What is his opinion on AB962?

What was his opinion on the lead ban?

What was his opinion on the .50 BMG ban?

What was his opinion on the micro-stamping bill?

What is his opinion on drilling off the coast of California?

What is his opinion on the water rationing in the Central Valley due to a stupid guppy?

What is his opinion on putting solar panels out in the desert (Feinstein is against it)?

Is he going to tell the Environmental Whackos to F-off?

Is he for personal and corporate tax cuts?

Inquiring minds want to know.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 9:27 AM
Not only has the 2010 gubernatorial candidate never held office, but an analysis of her record by the Sacramento Bee showed that she hadn't even registered to vote until she was 46 years old, and only became a Republican two years ago.

Meg Whitman's nonvoting voting record
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-whitman29-2009sep29,0,4711751.story

Paladin
10-08-2009, 9:56 AM
I heard on the radio yesterday or the day before that AG Jerry Brown has launched an investigation into the role that Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch -- the 3 ratings services -- played in the causing the financial crisis by rating structured investments highly, when in fact they should have been rated as junk. That allowed the RE/financial bubble to blow up as big as it did before it burst.

As a life-long Repub, I applaud AG Brown for trying to hold people individually responsible for what happened. I'm sure many fiscally conservative Repubs, Independents, and Dems will also appreciate his efforts in this.

FeuerFrei
10-08-2009, 10:06 AM
In election season I cannot get excited about anything a politician does that smells of "grand standing" to get attention.
I remember Brown during his tenure as gov.
Look what he did for Oakland and then decide if this guy has what it takes.
He is not and never has been a RKBA guy.
Liberals of his ilk don't grow smart only old.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 10:17 AM
How soon you Jerry Brown supporters forget. Or are you just blinded by party identification...

One of the most irksome political commercials running here in California, is one from former Governor, Jerry Brown (Or as he was known while governor, "Governor Moonbeam"). Gov. Brown is now running for Attorney General against Republican Chuck Poochigian.

In this ad, a police captain appears. He isn't wearing a badge on his uniform, and his agency patch has been blacked out with electrical tape—no doubt as a requirement of his department. Captain Cop proceeds to hold up a .50 caliber round, and decry the horrific "fifty caliber assault rifle" that fires it.

The .50 cal. BMG is not, in any way, shape or form, an "assault rifle". It's a sniper rifle. But "assault rifle" sounds so scary and mean, because it used to, you know, assault stuff.

In a state of high dudgeon, Captain Cop then barks at us that this horrific cop-killing bullet can go through two cars, and still kill you. Therefore, we need to be sure we keep these horrific weapons off the street, before more cops are killed.

Now, I don't know how things are in your part of the US, but most criminal out here don't put down $3,000 to buy a 20-pound rifle to lug around. And, as it happens, no police officers have actually been killed by the .50 cal. BMG. Although, in 1995—eleven years ago—a BMG armed whackjob did have a stand-off with the cops, during which he did fire a round that went through two cars. Oh, and that wasn't even in California. It was in Colorado.

But the BMG is such a hated firearm by California police that they finally managed to get AB50 through the Lej, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed it into law, making the BMG illegal in California.

(Digression: Here's an odd sidelight of that law. It doesn't name the BMG specifically. It just bans .50 cal. rifles. So, overnight, all of the .50 caliber, muzzle-loading, black powder rifles in the state became illegal as well. A .54 caliber black-power muzzle loader is still legal, though.)

Anyway, Captain Cop then goes on to inform us that Chuck Poochigian must hate cops and want them to die because he opposed the banning of the BMG rifle. Jerry Brown, of course, thinks AB50 was a keeno idea!

Huh. Well, if I had any doubt about voting for Poochy before, I'm certainly willing to support him now.

Oh, and before you ask, no, I don't particularly care of the police are fearful of the BMG or not. It's already illegal to own a huge number of semi-automatic firearms that are perfectly legal int he rest of the US. And even for those that are still legal, no weapon can have a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds. For cripes sake, you can't even buy a knife with a double-edged blade in California. We've gone more than far enough to keep the police safe. If they think their job is too dangerous, then, well, they can always quit, and find another line of work. I did.

The primary concern of a free society isn't to make the cops comfortable. It is to preserve the individual rights of the citizens. Let me tell, you, the Vopos in East Germany were pretty darned relaxed cops, but that wasn't a society I'm interested in emulating. Frankly, I want the government and its agents, including police officers, to live in constant fear of the citizenry.

A society where that kind of fear obtains is far superior to the reverse. I've seen those societies, and I didn't much like 'em.

Jerry Brown and the BMG "Assault Rifle"
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4776

bwiese
10-08-2009, 10:53 AM
MolonLabe is not aware of various undercurrents that happened in the past. One day as he grows from a Rep. party shill into a gunrights advocate (the two do not necessarily share much territory these days in CA) he will grow up and learn to read between the lines and understand how to translate things in the Land of Shadows & Gray.

The above 50BMG drama was the result of opponent Chuck Poochigian's stupidity for even bringing up the subject - he brought it up first and shoulda been smart enough to know the outcome. It was stupid to do, esp for a supposedly pro-gun candidate: do you expect to win a statewide election saying "I'm for 50bmgs?" Jeezus. I believe the NRA even *told* Pooch not even to bring it up, but the NRA can't stop stupidity. If you give somoone an issue to beat you with, he'll use it against you.

I will say that the DOJ under AG Brown withheld all comment/support for lead ammo and microstamping issues and has not supported AB962. There may be additional help on 962 legal issues.

In prior history under Lockyer there was active lobbying for antigun bills.

His amicus breif in support of the 2nd overshadows any and all other pro-gun work (aside from No votes) the CA Republicans have done in the last decade

In fact, from:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/aug/10/1n10guncodes235322-casing-code-issues-snag-handgun/

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has not certified the law, which is required before it can take effect
as scheduled on Jan. 1, and his aides could not say when that may happen.
.
{snip}
.
“We're continuing to review the legislation, but the certification requirements have not yet been met,” Christine
Gasparac, the attorney general's press secretary, said last week.

The relevant patents are not yet in the public domain, Gasparac explained. “Nothing can move forward until
the patent issue has been resolved,” she said.And from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202433974688&rss=newswire (jhttp://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202433974688&rss=newswire)

But in another case across the country, involving the same issue, Brown filed an amicus that has gun control
advocates shaking their heads. After the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the Second Amendment
didn't apply to state or local governments -- and therefore upheld a local handgun ordinance -- Brown joined
those asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.

The move throws a spotlight on how Brown, a presumed candidate for the governorship, handles this sometimes
socially divisive issue. His 7th Circuit brief disappointed -- but didn't surprise -- Juliet Leftwich, the legal director
of Legal Communities Against Violence in San Francisco.

"He just stands in stark contrast to Bill Lockyer, who was an active leader in this area," she said.

According to Leftwich, Brown hasn't co-sponsored any firearms-related legislation or fought gun rights groups
as hard as the previous administration. "There's been a sea change under Jerry Brown," she said. Chief Deputy
Attorney General James Humes said the Justice Department does plenty to stanch the scourge of guns but
simply believes in different approaches to the problem.

"I would say Jerry Brown is much more interested in law enforcement than legislation," said Humes.

Under Brown's leadership, Humes said the department has seized 1,194 firearms and arrested 87 individuals on
California's list of those prohibited from carrying firearms. Authorities have also nabbed people illegally transporting
guns into the state after buying them at shows in Nevada.

As for the attorney general's position in the 7th Circuit case, Humes calls it a "common-sense" approach. "The
Second Amendment exists, and it will exist whether we like it or not," he said. As for FeuerFrei's mention of JB's Oakland tenure as mayor, his positions were largely conservative, pro-business development, anti-crime. OPD line guys had favorable opinions of him - including those who are NRA members and Calgunners. His tenure as mayor would not really be differentiable from a pro-biz pro-growth Republican - albeit hobbled with a left-of-Berkeley City Council.

I also see, besides the above
- no more Iggy Chinn
- Firearms Div downsized to Bureau
- proposed 'detachable magazine' regulations not even attempted to be implemented;
- OLLs everywhere - gunshops, gunshows, etc. - with no drama from DOJ

bulgron
10-08-2009, 11:06 AM
As for FeuerFrei's mention of JB's Oakland tenure as mayor, his positions were largely conservative, pro-business development, anti-crime. OPD line guys had favorable opinions of him - including those who are NRA members and Calgunners. His tenure as mayor would not really be differentiable from a pro-biz pro-growth Republican - albeit hobbled with a left-of-Berkeley City Council.

I also see, besides the above
- no more Iggy Chinn
- Firearms Div downsized to Bureau
- proposed 'detachable magazine' regulations not even attempted to be implemented;
- OLLs everywhere - gunshops, gunshows, etc. - with no drama from DOJ

On top of which, at this point in the game, it appears that our choices are Newsome or Brown. The various Republican candidates aren't even contenders, based on polling numbers (and the fact that the California Republican Party is flat-out incompetent).

So, given that, who do you want for governor? Newsome or Brown?

Me, I'll pick Brown. At least he's done things as AG that we like.

Hopi
10-08-2009, 11:09 AM
:90:

hvengel
10-08-2009, 12:09 PM
(Digression: Here's an odd sidelight of that law. It doesn't name the BMG specifically. It just bans .50 cal. rifles. So, overnight, all of the .50 caliber, muzzle-loading, black powder rifles in the state became illegal as well. A .54 caliber black-power muzzle loader is still legal, though.)

Is flat out wrong. The law does specifically name the .50 BMG and it also specifies things like case and overall cartridge length, head diameter and other measurements to distinguish the .50 BMG from other .50 rounds. I am not sure how the original source got this so wrong but everyone here should know better. It is best not to spread FUD.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 12:12 PM
One day as he grows from a Rep. party shill into a gunrights advocate



"Rep. party shill?????"

I despise the Republican Party just as much as I despise the Democrat Party.

I'm a Conservative who believes that ALL gun laws that "infringe" on a person's right to keep and bear arms are Unconstitutional.

And like I asked above, where does Brown stand on...

Taxes?
Spending?
Social Programs?
State Budget?
Environmental policy?
Energy?

Dwight K. Schrute
10-08-2009, 12:35 PM
The article also mentions that Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell are in a dead heat. I have never heard of him before so I googled him.

How is he a an antigunner? Does he have a history? I think he is the only candidate who mentions the Second Amendment on his campaign site.
http://www.campbell.org/2nd-amendment

The rest of him doesn't look too bad either, or at least that's what I think.
http://www.campbell.org/ideas

bulgron
10-08-2009, 12:37 PM
The article also mentions that Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell are in a dead heat. I have never heard of him before so I googled him.

How is he a an antigunner? Does he have a history? I think he is the only candidate who mentions the Second Amendment on his campaign site.
http://www.campbell.org/2nd-amendment

The rest of him doesn't look too bad either, or at least that's what I think.
http://www.campbell.org/ideas

On his website he flat-out says that he's against shall-issue CCW. He therefore does not get my support.

berto
10-08-2009, 12:41 PM
The article also mentions that Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell are in a dead heat. I have never heard of him before so I googled him.

How is he a an antigunner? Does he have a history? I think he is the only candidate who mentions the Second Amendment on his campaign site.
http://www.campbell.org/2nd-amendment

The rest of him doesn't look too bad either, or at least that's what I think.
http://www.campbell.org/ideas

His record from his time in the House was quite unfriendly to 2A issues. He supported "common sense" measures pushed by our biggest enemies in DC. He seems to have changed his tune since Heller.

bwiese
10-08-2009, 12:43 PM
I'm a Conservative who believes that ALL gun laws that "infringe" on a person's right to keep and bear arms are Unconstitutional.

And like I asked above, where does Brown stand on...

Taxes?
Spending?
Social Programs?
State Budget?
Environmental policy?
Energy?

Who cares? This is a gun website and I assume everyone here is RKBA-first. We have to be, to win.

berto
10-08-2009, 12:45 PM
Who cares? This is a gun website and I assume everyone here is RKBA-first. We have to be, to win.

If only it were so

Dwight K. Schrute
10-08-2009, 12:50 PM
Who cares? This is a gun website and I assume everyone here is RKBA-first. We have to be, to win.

That reminds me, time to send another fax.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 12:57 PM
Who cares? This is a gun website and I assume everyone here is RKBA-first. We have to be, to win.

I care!!!!!!!

What’s the sense of having the right to own any gun one pleases when the State…

1) Taxes you to death (no money equals no gun buying).
2) Imposes Environmental Laws that impact when and where people can shoot (nowhere to shoot equals gun trophies).
3) Doesn’t create an environment that creates jobs (no job equals no money equals no gun buying).

You should care, too.

lioneaglegriffin
10-08-2009, 1:01 PM
why don't you ask him?

hoffmang
10-08-2009, 1:07 PM
And like I asked above, where does Brown stand on...

Taxes?
Spending?
Social Programs?
State Budget?
Environmental policy?
Energy?

Do you think Gavin would be better on any of the above points? None of the R's can beat Brown and only Gavin has a chance to beat Brown. If Gavin beat Brown, the R's might have a chance - but I doubt both hypotheticals.

-Gene

Mitch
10-08-2009, 2:13 PM
We live in interesting times.

It will be fun watching Jerry Brown fencing with the Obama Administration over the legalization of marijuana in California.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization

dfletcher
10-08-2009, 2:31 PM
why don't you ask him?

I did - I asked:



Your candidacy is being actively discussed on Calguns, a state wide gun rights forum.

Do you support the current CA "Assault Weapon Ban"?

Do you support the current CA high capacity magazine ban?

Do you support the current CA 50 BMG ban?

Do you support the current CA law that requires handguns to be on a "CA Approved" listing prior to being sold in state?

Would you sign or veto either of the current bills on the Governor's desk - AB 962 and AB 585?

Thank you"

Not the greatest I admit, but we'll see what answers we get. Perhaps he'll visit .....

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 2:47 PM
I did - I asked:



Your candidacy is being actively discussed on Calguns, a state wide gun rights forum.

Do you support the current CA "Assault Weapon Ban"?

Do you support the current CA high capacity magazine ban?

Do you support the current CA 50 BMG ban?

Do you support the current CA law that requires handguns to be on a "CA Approved" listing prior to being sold in state?

Would you sign or veto either of the current bills on the Governor's desk - AB 962 and AB 585?

Thank you"

Not the greatest I admit, but we'll see what answers we get. Perhaps he'll visit .....

Perfect. :thumbsup:

bwiese
10-08-2009, 2:59 PM
I believe this is the wrong time to ask these question to get accurate answers, esp from any politician, esp at this time.

We don't need to thwart & revert our forward progress.

Given that Juliet Leftwich, Sayre Weaver and the LCAV/Brady crew are unhappy with him, that's fine with me.

His single amicus brief has made up for any past or possibly even any future sin.

Plus his high level support of a right obviates any low-level shenanigans... it's all about the courts, baby. As long as other matters remain in stasis, we're OK.



I care!!!!!!! What’s the since of having the right to own any gun one pleases when the State…

1) Taxes you to death (no money equals no gun buying).
2) Imposes Environmental Laws that impact when and where people can shoot (nowhere to shoot equals gun trophies).
3) Doesn’t create an environment that creates jobs (no job equals no money equals no gun buying).

You should care, too.

I tend to ignore folks who can't get "sense" vs. "since" usage correct.

I also tend to ignore folks who play trading games with their RKBA. We've had enough gun orgs do that in the past and saw the result.

What % tax rate will you accept to give up gun rights and stop fighting?

It's all about focus.

BTW, if you think any R candidate has ability to deal with a 60+% Dem legislature, you're gravely mistaken. At best the Rs can hold the budget hostage.

If you want better options, you need to help revitalize the CA Republican party and get some WINNERS in statewide seats, legislature, etc. for an extended time period. Sorry, that's the way it is.

wash
10-08-2009, 3:11 PM
I wouldn't expect Brown to start wearing an NRA button any time soon.

He's a politician, he'll give you a political answer and you should understand that.

Gun rights are a minority issue in CA.

Politicians win by courting the majority (usually with lies).

Arnold has burned the CA republican party by leaving the state with worse budget trouble than Davis had and some say being a RINO. The housing bubble and bailouts are not his fault but people won't remember that.

With no viable republican candidates, we are left with a choice of Newsom, Brown and probably not Feinstein. I'll pick Brown every time.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 3:21 PM
I tend to ignore folks who can't get "sense" vs. "since" usage correct.


Ah! A grammar Nazi.

So, what you are saying is that you ignore a lot of members on CalGuns, because there are a lot of people on CalGuns who make horrendous spelling and grammar errors.

Good going. You just insulted a lot of members.

You sure are a condescending individual, aren't you?

Excuse me for the typo.

I know the difference between "since" and "sense"


By the way, do you practice what you preach?

MolonLabe is not aware of various undercurrents that happened in the past. One day as he grows from a Rep. party shill into a gunrights advocate (the two do not necessarily share much territory these days in CA) he will grow up and learn to read between the lines and understand how to translate things in the Land of Shadows & Gray.

The above 50BMG drama was the result of opponent Chuck Poochigian's stupidity for even bringing up the subject - he brought it up first and shoulda been smart enough to know the outcome. It was stupid to do, esp for a supposedly pro-gun candidate: do you expect to win a statewide election saying "I'm for 50bmgs?" Jeezus. I believe the NRA even *told* Pooch not even to bring it up, but the NRA can't stop stupidity. If you give somoone an issue to beat you with, he'll use it against you.

I will say that the DOJ under AG Brown withheld all comment/support for lead ammo and microstamping issues and has not supported AB962. There may be additional help on 962 legal issues.

In prior history under Lockyer there was active lobbying for antigun bills.

His amicus breif in support of the 2nd overshadows any and all other pro-gun work (aside from No votes) the CA Republicans have done in the last decade

wash
10-08-2009, 3:38 PM
Grammar Nazi or not, I like Bill.

No, not like that sicko.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 3:54 PM
By the way, I don't like any of the current Republican and Democrat Candidates who are running for Governor.

lioneaglegriffin
10-08-2009, 3:54 PM
Grammar Nazi or not, I like Bill.

No, not like that sicko.

me too, plus i'm ok with gramma end speling natsi's. :D

i do it everyone once and a while myself, otherwise how will they learn spell check is their friend.

lioneaglegriffin
10-08-2009, 3:54 PM
By the way, I don't like any of the current Republican and Democrat Candidates who are running for Governor.

if you got no skin in the game why complain?

elSquid
10-08-2009, 4:14 PM
By the way, I don't like any of the current Republican and Democrat Candidates who are running for Governor.

So which one are you going to not vote for?

-- Michael

bwiese
10-08-2009, 4:57 PM
Ah! A grammar Nazi.

By the way, do you practice what you preach?

Difference between fast-typing typos and misuse.

"Gunrights" is acceptable as a one-word concept. I use it this way consistently.

"Shoulda" = casual contraction.

Yeah, you got me on the extra 'o' in someone and 'ei' instead of 'ie' on quickly-typed 'brief'.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 6:31 PM
if you got no skin in the game why complain?

What? Why don't I have any "skin in the game?"

So, I only have "skin in the game" if I vote for either the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate?

Bill W. and others keep telling me that the Republicans have no chance, so why vote if only the Democrat is going to win.

By the way, I'm voting and if no viable candidate comes along by election time then I'm writing in a candidate.

lioneaglegriffin
10-08-2009, 6:34 PM
What? Why don't I have any "skin in the game?"

So, I only have "skin in the game" if I vote for either the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate?

Bill W. and others keep telling me that the Republicans have no chance, so why vote if only the Democrat is going to win.

By the way, I'm voting and if no viable candidate comes along by election time then I'm writing in a candidate.

well thats different, by 'no skin' i thought you weren't voting at all. but if your voting third party then more power to you.

vrand
10-08-2009, 7:36 PM
I believe this is the wrong time to ask these question to get accurate answers, esp from any politician, esp at this time.

We don't need to thwart & revert our forward progress.

Given that Juliet Leftwich, Sayre Weaver and the LCAV/Brady crew are unhappy with him, that's fine with me.

His single amicus brief has made up for any past or possibly even any future sin.

Plus his high level support of a right obviates any low-level shenanigans... it's all about the courts, baby. As long as other matters remain in stasis, we're OK.




I tend to ignore folks who can't get "sense" vs. "since" usage correct.

I also tend to ignore folks who play trading games with their RKBA. We've had enough gun orgs do that in the past and saw the result.

What % tax rate will you accept to give up gun rights and stop fighting?

It's all about focus.

BTW, if you think any R candidate has ability to deal with a 60+% Dem legislature, you're gravely mistaken. At best the Rs can hold the budget hostage.

If you want better options, you need to help revitalize the CA Republican party and get some WINNERS in statewide seats, legislature, etc. for an extended time period. Sorry, that's the way it is.

:cheers2:

Gator Monroe
10-08-2009, 7:39 PM
Brown will not get my vote . :chris:

bwiese
10-08-2009, 7:54 PM
Brown will not get my vote . :chris:

Why, jealous of his IQ?

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 8:30 PM
*damn* :43:

jacques
10-08-2009, 8:54 PM
This is all good news. We may have a governor with some common sense.

7x57
10-08-2009, 8:58 PM
Do you think Gavin would be better on any of the above points?

This of course is a vital point. Nobody can call me a Jerry Brown supporter, but I am willing to bet there isn't a single issue where I'm unhappy with Jerry Brown on which dear little prince Gavin is not worse.

Since I'm not currently registered in a way that I could affect the Democratic primary anyway, it's actually half-tempting to decide for once to go vote a hopeless third-party candidate.

I'm not sure what principle that would be upholding, but all the Libertarians insist it upholds one so I guess it must. :D

The problem is I never believed in throwing away votes....

7x57

lioneaglegriffin
10-08-2009, 9:07 PM
This of course is a vital point. Nobody can call me a Jerry Brown supporter, but I am willing to bet there isn't a single issue where I'm unhappy with Jerry Brown on which dear little prince Gavin is not worse.

Since I'm not currently registered in a way that I could affect the Democratic primary anyway, it's actually half-tempting to decide for once to go vote a hopeless third-party candidate.

I'm not sure what principle that would be upholding, but all the Libertarians insist it upholds one so I guess it must. :D

The problem is I never believed in throwing away votes....

7x57

i believe the term is 'viable candidate'.

PonchoTA
10-08-2009, 10:52 PM
Well, since I don't like any of the "Republican" candidates offered (WHY oh WHY can't we get someone good to run????), and JB is the least offensive among the whole field, I'll just hold my nose and push the button.

Damn this sucks. :(

.

mattmcg
10-08-2009, 11:10 PM
Bill, I would urge you to remove your subtitle stating that Tom Campbell is an anti-gunner. I know for a fact that he is pro 2A and in favor of incorporation of the 2nd amendment in the CA constitution. It is incorrect to paint him in this light on the forum and while I respect what you contribute to the forum, you've jumped to a faulty conclusion here. Here is what he states publicly click here. (http://www.campbell.org/2nd-amendment)

Personally with my direct interaction with Mr. Campbell, I believe he is the best choice we have for protecting 2A rights in the state. Unfortunately, Republicans in the state at this point in time are strategically moderate in any of their positions as they begin building their support base. PM me if you'd like more detail.

elSquid
10-08-2009, 11:53 PM
Bill, I would urge you to remove your subtitle stating that Tom Campbell is an anti-gunner. I know for a fact that he is pro 2A and in favor of incorporation of the 2nd amendment in the CA constitution. It is incorrect to paint him in this light on the forum and while I respect what you contribute to the forum, you've jumped to a faulty conclusion here. Here is what he states publicly click here. (http://www.campbell.org/2nd-amendment)

I spent some time on google one night and looked into his past. Pretty consistently antigun.

Linky here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2884723&highlight=tom+campbell#post2884723).

Is there any record of any pro-gun activity on his part?

-- Michael

kperry
10-09-2009, 12:12 AM
I've got to agree with Bill's stance on Jerry Brown - after doing my homework, I'll have a pretty clear conscience voting for him in the primary. He's pretty clearly pragmatic on 2A issues, and his actions are backing that up nicely.
I really wish that California would manage to switch to an open primary, so that I could really register the way I'd prefer to. I am happy to see a (D) that's better on 2A issues than the leading (R) for once...

On the grammar nazism - I've just got to say that there must be a lot of heavily damaged rifles around here... It's a muzzle BRAKE, fercryinoutloud!!! (thanks for letting me get that off my chest)

lioneaglegriffin
10-09-2009, 12:18 AM
I spent some time on google one night and looked into his past. Pretty consistently antigun.

Linky here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2884723&highlight=tom+campbell#post2884723).

Is there any record of any pro-gun activity on his part?

-- Michael

no, NO make it stop! republicans can't be anti gun. :rolleyes:

sad fact is that california republicans and democrats are to the left of their national parties.

lioneaglegriffin
10-09-2009, 12:20 AM
I've got to agree with Bill's stance on Jerry Brown - after doing my homework, I'll have a pretty clear conscience voting for him in the primary. He's pretty clearly pragmatic on 2A issues, and his actions are backing that up nicely.
I really wish that California would manage to switch to an open primary, so that I could really register the way I'd prefer to. I am happy to see a (D) that's better on 2A issues than the leading (R) for once...

On the grammar nazism - I've just got to say that there must be a lot of heavily damaged rifles around here... It's a muzzle BRAKE, fercryinoutloud!!! (thanks for letting me get that off my chest)

i voted in an open primary for a special election? i thought the republican that sold out on the budget had open primaries apart of the deal. what happened to that?

mattmcg
10-09-2009, 12:33 AM
I really wish that California would manage to switch to an open primary, so that I could really register the way I'd prefer to. I am happy to see a (D) that's better on 2A issues than the leading (R) for once...


From my understanding the people of California will be able to vote on this end of next year. I agree, changing to an open primary (vis-a-vis Louisiana open primary methodologies) would be positive and allow for more moderate candidates to gain the top of the ticket.

I'm hoping the citizens alliance for redistricting is also effective in developing a more moderate stance for our representatives. Gerrymandering has allowed far too liberal of representatives to stay in office way too long!

lioneaglegriffin
10-09-2009, 12:47 AM
prop 11 and open primaries hopefully do a lot and put the fear of god into our legislators who would be mo worried about keeping their seats than writing f'n bills.

artherd
10-09-2009, 3:15 AM
The Antis hate Brown.

That's enough for me right there.


(add in that I've met him and been impressed with his libertarian views and attitude - oh and he's written the ONLY pro-RKBA brief to come out of this state's Justice Department in, oh, ever.)

PonchoTA
10-09-2009, 6:44 AM
Well, if we DON'T get an open primary, you can be assured that JB will probably NOT be on the final ticket. The Dems will push their favorites (our lesser 'desirables') up to the top and we (the rest of us) won't even get the opportunity to vote for him, only the R's which do NOTHING for us.

That's the same way they got McCain to the top of the R's ticket...

I reiterate: This sucks. :(

.

Gator Monroe
10-09-2009, 9:06 AM
Why, jealous of his IQ?

No ,because I had inside Info on his background when I worked at Recording Studio and LR recorded there and spilled beans back in early 80's.

bwiese
10-09-2009, 9:48 AM
Bill, I would urge you to remove your subtitle stating that Tom Campbell is an anti-gunner. I know for a fact that he is pro 2A and in favor of incorporation of the 2nd amendment in the CA constitution. It is incorrect to paint him in this light on the forum and while I respect what you contribute to the forum, you've jumped to a faulty conclusion here. Here is what he states publicly click here. (http://www.campbell.org/2nd-amendment)

Personally with my direct interaction with Mr. Campbell, I believe he is the best choice we have for protecting 2A rights in the state. Unfortunately, Republicans in the state at this point in time are strategically moderate in any of their positions as they begin building their support base. PM me if you'd like more detail.


There is a small chance that Tom Campbell was stricken by lightning and his brain chemistry reworked overnight. It's highly unlikely, however: the road to Damascus is 7300 miles away.

Rather, Campbell likely sees this as yet another slightly differentiating issue where he can pick up an extra vote in a battle where hs primary opponents are billionaires and are otherwise somewhat indistinguishable milquetoast non-personalites.

The other problem is that even if Campbell were legit on the RKBA front [and he has decades of antigun statements for which to apologize: complete opposite of Jerry Brown who's been touting rights and RKBA and BATF excesses since the '80s] we have to reward the people that have had a history of already supporting us. Our votes do no good unless we use them intelligently and use them with leverage.

From his history of past anti statements I continue to believe Tom Campbell is an anti. Even if I were to truly believe he had a turnabout and was pro-gun, I would not vote for him, because he did nothing for us before - as contrasted with the AG. Results need rewards, and we have to reward those who've actually helped us first before considering promises of future support.

Gator Monroe
10-09-2009, 10:02 AM
Rewarding Democrats in this state is not good for 2A .

bwiese
10-09-2009, 10:08 AM
Rewarding Democrats in this state is not good for 2A .

Rewarding the Democrat *party* is not good for RKBA in general.

Rewarding INDIVIDUAL Democrats for active support of RKBA is CRITICAL.
It adds value to our message.

Otherwise your endorsements mean nothing because they're taken for granted.

And why do we wanna reward antigun Republican gov candidates, along with a lackluster party who at best just votes "No" on antigun bills instead of carrying achievable incremental bills.

wash
10-09-2009, 10:08 AM
He's rewarding consistency.

Gator Monroe
10-09-2009, 10:13 AM
He's rewarding consistency.

Sweeping changes of 10 midterms should include Ca. Govenorship .

Mayhem
10-09-2009, 11:22 AM
Is flat out wrong. The law does specifically name the .50 BMG and it also specifies things like case and overall cartridge length, head diameter and other measurements to distinguish the .50 BMG from other .50 rounds. I am not sure how the original source got this so wrong but everyone here should know better. It is best not to spread FUD.

Hvengle is Correct and Incorrect.

The 50 bmg Round is not banned, Only a rifle capable of being fired from the shoulder chambered for the .50 bmg round defined by case dimensions is banned.

You can buy all the .50bmg ammo you want you just can't buy a rifle chambered for it.

However .510 DTC/.510 Erope are legal and essentially the same thing they use the same bullet primer powder and charge. The case dimensions are different and a rifle chambered in .50 bmg cannot fire a .510 E/DTC round and a .510 E/DTC rifle cannot fire a .50 bmg however the .510 brass can be formed from .50 bmg brass.

swaits
10-09-2009, 12:24 PM
Open primary or not.. it's pretty easy to change your registration. You still have plenty of time.

I'd consider switching mine from (L) to (D) so I could vote against Gavin.

--Steve

kblack583
10-09-2009, 12:50 PM
Open primary or not.. it's pretty easy to change your registration. You still have plenty of time.

I'd consider switching mine from (L) to (D) so I could vote against Gavin.

--Steve

Thinking about doing the same. Keeping Gavin out is a serious issue.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
10-09-2009, 1:17 PM
Well, if we DON'T get an open primary, you can be assured that JB will probably NOT be on the final ticket. The Dems will push their favorites (our lesser 'desirables') up to the top and we (the rest of us) won't even get the opportunity to vote for him, only the R's which do NOTHING for us.

Register D before the primary.

bwiese
10-09-2009, 1:24 PM
Well, if we DON'T get an open primary, you can be assured that JB will probably NOT be on the final ticket. The Dems will push their favorites (our lesser 'desirables') up to the top and we (the rest of us) won't even get the opportunity to vote for him, only the R's which do NOTHING for us.

Love ya Poncho, but untrue, IMHO.

JB can win closed primaries.

Firstly, Feinstein won't enter: (1) she has easygoing Senate job/prestige and doesn't have to roll in the mud in an executive role; (2) Feinstein is in late 70s and rumors abound that she needs her naps and goes a bit ga-ga - i.e, more so than just common "senior moments" of those in 70s.

JB also controls a whole buncha money - and campaign consultants that wanna win. That means he helps direct party money - money follows money. He's also close with old line skilled trade unions (IBEW/Steamfitters/sheetmetal etc.) as opposed to the SEIU unskilled mopbucket labor unions.

CA Dems are smart enough to win, they actually generally put up electable folks - something the CA R's should think about.

PonchoTA
10-09-2009, 3:03 PM
Love ya Poncho, but untrue, IMHO.

JB can win closed primaries.

Firstly, Feinstein won't enter: (1) she has easygoing Senate job/prestige and doesn't have to roll in the mud in an executive role; (2) Feinstein is in late 70s and rumors abound that she needs her naps and goes a bit ga-ga - i.e, more so than just common "senior moments" of those in 70s.

JB also controls a whole buncha money - and campaign consultants that wanna win. That means he helps direct party money - money follows money. He's also close with old line skilled trade unions (IBEW/Steamfitters/sheetmetal etc.) as opposed to the SEIU unskilled mopbucket labor unions.

CA Dems are smart enough to win, they actually generally put up electable folks - something the CA R's should think about.

Wow, I wasn't even thinking of DiFi; thought she was too old to even consider it. I was more scared of the D's candidates like Newsom, and also the poor showing by the R's like Whitman (Ugh) and Campbell (double ugh).

Like I was trying to intimate: seems like JB is the least offensive of the candidates available, so I'll probably vote for him; but I sure wish the R's would put somebody up on the ticket that was worth my vote (read: Whitman and Campbell are NOT).

(Can we please get Matt Blunt to move here from MO??? He sure did a lot of good there... THAT'S the kind of candidate I want to vote FOR). Or Jindal?? Those kind of folks we need more of.

:(

.

7x57
10-09-2009, 3:14 PM
(2) Feinstein is in late 70s and rumors abound that she needs her naps and goes a bit ga-ga - i.e, more so than just common "senior moments" of those in 70s.


Does that mean we have some hope of seeing her out the door sometime in the forseeable future? :D

Of course, it isn't like there is no precedent for ancient senile senators remaining in office long after their ability to operate heavy equipment was gone. :(

7x57

bulgron
10-09-2009, 3:17 PM
Does that mean we have some hope of seeing her out the door sometime in the forseeable future? :D

Of course, it isn't like there is no precedent for ancient senile senators remaining in office long after their ability to operate heavy equipment was gone. :(

7x57

In DiFi's case, I think that point came and went 20 years ago.

7x57
10-09-2009, 3:27 PM
There is a small chance that Tom Campbell was stricken by lightning and his brain chemistry reworked overnight. It's highly unlikely, however: the road to Damascus is 7300 miles away.


Hey, a gen-u-wine biblical allusion from Bill, and I just want to commemorate the occasion. I didn't think Bill had the knowledge or the interest to make biblical allusions. ;)

I think this happens in Revelation just before the antichrist shows up, right? :TFH:


Rather, Campbell likely sees this as yet another slightly differentiating issue where he can pick up an extra vote


Even if we granted the other points--that John Browning appeared to him on the road, knocked him off his horse, and asked Tom why he was persecuting him, and granted that Tom doesn't simply see it as a small opportunity, there is still a lot of territory between being anti-gun and supporting what the 2A actually means. His conversion experience might only extend to "sporting purposes," or handguns for self defense, or whatever. I'd be real surprised if he's OK with black-plastic carbines, for example. Similarly, he might have gotten OK with home defense because SCOTUS says so, but it's unlikely that he'd have a change of heart to the point of supporting carry rights.

It's also unlikely that any change would be to *real* support. There is a difference between deciding that we're not worth going after and being willing to veto a bill related to black rifles or .50BMG or standard-capacity magazines or to carrying.

What I'm saying is that support "the Second Amendment" or "gun rights" is almost meaningless by itself. Obama haMoshiach apparently supports the Second Amendment, and do you want to know how much I think that's worth?

That's another reason track record is what matters--it isn't only about "support," it's about what that support actually means.

7x57

7x57
10-09-2009, 3:41 PM
Rewarding Democrats in this state is not good for 2A .

Nobody, I think, can claim I'm soft on liberals who happen not to hate guns. But the fact is that issues "captured" by one party end up receiving nothing more than lip service. Your policy would lead to there being no consequences for Republicans to wave in our general direction and then do nothing concrete.

It isn't just bad for us when Democrats are elected: your idea is bad for us when *Republicans* are elected. My lack of enthusiasm for Jerry Brown is solely because I'm not a single-issue voter: from the pure gun rights perspective, I have enough information to be certain that on that one issue JB is probably the best candidate in the race from either major party. (I had to qualify that, because I'm sure there are some Constitution Party or Libertarian Party candidates that are as spiffy as they are unelectable.) If you weight by electability, there isn't even anything to discuss.

I actually would vote for Shub-Niggurath over Newsome. After all, while the one is an unspeakable cosmic horror that would unmake your mind if you gazed on it, the other at least has that neat "she-goat with a thousand young" thing going on. :D

7x57

Sgt Raven
10-09-2009, 8:44 PM
Why, jealous of his IQ?

Zoom. :p

Gator Monroe
10-09-2009, 9:40 PM
Thinking about doing the same. Keeping Gavin out is a serious issue.

Gavin is such a great name ,why did this clown have to spoil it (Kinda the Way Adolph was ruined):(

LiquidFlorian
10-09-2009, 10:04 PM
So Meg Whitman isn't a viable candidate?

Gator Monroe
10-09-2009, 10:11 PM
So Meg Whitman isn't a viable candidate?

Does Roddy Piper really live in Oregon ?:confused:

LiquidFlorian
10-09-2009, 10:16 PM
Does Roddy Piper really live in Oregon ?:confused:

I thought he moved back to Saskatchewan, but seriously I like her pro business approach but I don't really know anything about her platform...

berto
10-09-2009, 10:20 PM
So Meg Whitman isn't a viable candidate?

There's a thread on her, search and you'll see various views on her candidacy. Here's the short version:

-She doesn't support 2A

-She doesn't vote

-She's only recently a republican

-She donated to and endorsed Boxer last time Boxer ran

Her money makes her viable in terms of getting votes but she's not viable as a pro-2A candidate.

vrand
10-09-2009, 11:06 PM
There's a thread on her, search and you'll see various views on her candidacy. Here's the short version:

-She doesn't support 2A

-She doesn't vote

-She's only recently a republican

-She donated to and endorsed Boxer last time Boxer ran

Her money makes her viable in terms of getting votes but she's not viable as a pro-2A candidate.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s16/r3v3r3nd_album/fail1.jpg

dfletcher
10-13-2009, 8:59 AM
I did - I asked:



Your candidacy is being actively discussed on Calguns, a state wide gun rights forum.

Do you support the current CA "Assault Weapon Ban"?

Do you support the current CA high capacity magazine ban?

Do you support the current CA 50 BMG ban?

Do you support the current CA law that requires handguns to be on a "CA Approved" listing prior to being sold in state?

Would you sign or veto either of the current bills on the Governor's desk - AB 962 and AB 585?

Thank you"

Not the greatest I admit, but we'll see what answers we get. Perhaps he'll visit .....

I checked the site and found Mr Campbell provided this response which I've copied in its entirety.

"I am pleased that is so. I want to be clear, and to be understood. Individuals should vote for candidates on the basis of clear answers, not vague statements meant to please all sides. I ask you one favor: please compare my specific answers with what you get from the other candidates for Governor; and don't give the "benefit of the doubt" to a non-answer.

Yes, I currently support the CA "Assault Weapon Ban". The Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear arms appropriate to the traditional purposes for which the Second Amendment was drafted; namely, the ability of the citizenry (who were the militia in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted) to be summoned to restore order in the case of breach of the peace, to hunt, to protect home, person, and property, and for sport. Against those traditional uses, the state may weigh the potential that the weapon in question could do massive harm. A field artillery piece could, on that basis, be kept from private ownership. An assault weapon designed and functional to shoot bullets in fully automatic mode with only a trivial amount of modification could also be kept from private hands. A weapon that can only be operated in semi-automatic mode, however, should be legal to possess.

I'd approach such decisions with an open mind, based on the characteristics of the weapon. If you have any specific firearm that you believe should be added to or subtracted from the current assault weapon ban, I'd be open to hearing about it and why.

Yes, I do support the current CA high capacity magazine ban. The high capacity magazine is designed to allow many shots before an individual using it can be rushed or disarmed. Police and other law enforcement officials who put their lives at risk for all of us favor this ban. I stand with them.

The AB 50 law of 2005 banned any 50 caliber rifles, including bolt action, calling them assault weapons. I disagree with the characterization of such a firearm as an assault weapon, and would not have signed that bill. Outlawing this firearm purely on the basis of the caliber of its ammunition makes illegal hunting rifles that have been legitimate for years. Further, such firearms lack the most important attribute of the kind of assault weapon that poses a public safety hazard, the ability to shoot many bullets in a very short period of time, or to be easily modified into such a weapon.

Yes, I do support the current CA law that requires handguns to be on a "CA Approved" listing prior to being sold in state. The right to keep and bear arms is to be balanced with the state's right to "well regulate" the militia. The "militia," as understood in 1791, are the citizenry capable of carrying arms. It is appropriate for the state to make the distinction between weapons appropriate to traditional Second Amendment functions of defense of home and property, hunting, sport, and being able to be summoned to quell breaches of the peace, and those weapons that pose a very great danger to a large number of persons (like a field artillery piece). Creating a list appears to me a way to do so with clarity and in advance. If there is any dispute as to whether a particular weapon should be on that list, there should be an accessible way to contest its listing in a fair hearing.

I would not sign AB 585. As a good neighbor, the state should allow the immediately contiguous jurisdictions to decide whether to allow gun sales at the Cow Palace or not. Instead, AB 585 would prohibit gun sales at the Cow Palace, by state law, whatever the local jurisdictions thought best.

I would sign AB 962. It imposes restrictions on the sale of ammunition comparable to restrictions already in place on the sale of firearms. It is favored by policemen and women who risk their lives to protect us."

Hopi
10-13-2009, 9:10 AM
I checked the site and found Mr Campbell provided this response which I've copied in its entirety.

"I am pleased that is so. I want to be clear, and to be understood. Individuals should vote for candidates on the basis of clear answers, not vague statements meant to please all sides. I ask you one favor: please compare my specific answers with what you get from the other candidates for Governor; and don't give the "benefit of the doubt" to a non-answer.

Yes, I currently support the CA "Assault Weapon Ban". The Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear arms appropriate to the traditional purposes for which the Second Amendment was drafted; namely, the ability of the citizenry (who were the militia in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted) to be summoned to restore order in the case of breach of the peace, to hunt, to protect home, person, and property, and for sport. Against those traditional uses, the state may weigh the potential that the weapon in question could do massive harm. A field artillery piece could, on that basis, be kept from private ownership. An assault weapon designed and functional to shoot bullets in fully automatic mode with only a trivial amount of modification could also be kept from private hands. A weapon that can only be operated in semi-automatic mode, however, should be legal to possess.

I'd approach such decisions with an open mind, based on the characteristics of the weapon. If you have any specific firearm that you believe should be added to or subtracted from the current assault weapon ban, I'd be open to hearing about it and why.

Yes, I do support the current CA high capacity magazine ban. The high capacity magazine is designed to allow many shots before an individual using it can be rushed or disarmed. Police and other law enforcement officials who put their lives at risk for all of us favor this ban. I stand with them.

The AB 50 law of 2005 banned any 50 caliber rifles, including bolt action, calling them assault weapons. I disagree with the characterization of such a firearm as an assault weapon, and would not have signed that bill. Outlawing this firearm purely on the basis of the caliber of its ammunition makes illegal hunting rifles that have been legitimate for years. Further, such firearms lack the most important attribute of the kind of assault weapon that poses a public safety hazard, the ability to shoot many bullets in a very short period of time, or to be easily modified into such a weapon.

Yes, I do support the current CA law that requires handguns to be on a "CA Approved" listing prior to being sold in state. The right to keep and bear arms is to be balanced with the state's right to "well regulate" the militia. The "militia," as understood in 1791, are the citizenry capable of carrying arms. It is appropriate for the state to make the distinction between weapons appropriate to traditional Second Amendment functions of defense of home and property, hunting, sport, and being able to be summoned to quell breaches of the peace, and those weapons that pose a very great danger to a large number of persons (like a field artillery piece). Creating a list appears to me a way to do so with clarity and in advance. If there is any dispute as to whether a particular weapon should be on that list, there should be an accessible way to contest its listing in a fair hearing.

I would not sign AB 585. As a good neighbor, the state should allow the immediately contiguous jurisdictions to decide whether to allow gun sales at the Cow Palace or not. Instead, AB 585 would prohibit gun sales at the Cow Palace, by state law, whatever the local jurisdictions thought best.

I would sign AB 962. It imposes restrictions on the sale of ammunition comparable to restrictions already in place on the sale of firearms. It is favored by policemen and women who risk their lives to protect us."

Thanks for the follow up.

Apparently, he's a gun-grabber.

Sgt Raven
10-13-2009, 10:11 AM
Thanks for the follow up.

Apparently, he's a gun-grabber.

Like that's a big SURPRISE! :rolleyes:

Mitch
10-13-2009, 12:37 PM
. . . to be summoned to restore order in the case of breach of the peace, to hunt, to protect home, person, and property, and for sport.

Holy ****, where in the Federalist Papers does it say that?

What a sophist.

Mitch
10-13-2009, 12:38 PM
This is good:

It is favored by policemen and women who risk their lives to protect us.

I know, personally, more than a few "policemen and women who risk their lives to protect us" who would cheerfully support the repeal of habeas corpus. I suppose Campbell would go along with that, as well?

bwiese
10-13-2009, 12:48 PM
Yup, Tom Campbell has sealed his fate in my eyes...

gewgaw
10-13-2009, 12:49 PM
The sooner we realize that voting as a bloc for the candidate that BEST reflects our views -- REGARDLESS of their political party -- the sooner we can start flexing our voting muscles.

I agree with those that have pointed out that voting reflexively for Republicans will result in lip service and being taken-for-granted.

We need to populate the government with smart, electable people who would defend the 2A, no matter what their political stance. Jerry Brown is one of those people.

Anyway, Meg is a lightweight who doesn't stand a chance against Jerry Brown.

nicki
10-13-2009, 2:16 PM
Tom Campbell is generally good on economic and business issues, but is absolutely horrible on the 2nd amendment.

He is a "nice guy", but he is wrong on gun rights and for a constitutional scholar clearly doesn't understand that the RKBA is more than for sporting purposes, it is there to control our government.

The truth is that key people on this forum know Jerry Brown and after Jerry Brown wins, they will work with him not only on gun issues, but other issues to help rebuild this state.

It is important to send a message to both major parties that Calguns is not looking to become a 800 pound political gorilla, we are looking to becoming KING KONG and our message will be clear.

**** with us, you lose.

Gene made a great presentation at the SAF GRPC and when all the video clips are edited, I will let the SAF know so that they can contact all grassroots gun groups.

Tom Campbell will lose big time and the message to the republican party will be clear. He lost big time when he ran for senate against Feinstein and he is going to lose even bigger against Jerry Brown.

The Republican party in California needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. If they actually had candidates that ran on less government, more freedom, they wouldn't be in this mess.



Nicki

greasemonkey
10-14-2009, 7:07 PM
I'm still dumbfounded that the democratic party has someone that's more conservative, it's laughable. The republican party, both state and national, is not even a good joke, it's just sad. Ahnold? McCain? Whitman? What the ?? There's not a conservative ideal in any of those candidates. I need to look into the candidates more, still; but so far, Brown has the most foundational elements that I agree with.