PDA

View Full Version : Why we were sold out....


M.45
10-12-2009, 2:49 PM
He's trading votes...

"We think it was a devastating mistake,'' said Sam Paredes, executive director of the group representing 30,000 gun owners. Ammunition buyers, he said, "are going to be treated like registered sex offenders now.''

Paredes said he suspects the governor's surprising action on some bills was part of his effort "to line up votes on his water package.''


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/govs-surprise-bill-signings-harvey-milk-recognition-curbs-on-paparazzi-and-ammo.html

bwiese
10-12-2009, 2:54 PM
I think Sam gets a lot of things wrong.

At least he didn't screw the pooch this time like he did with microstamping & lead ammo bans in 2008.

There were 700 bills on the desk in less to be acted on in less than a day. Many more of them would have more leverage with more legislators than this bill - and he was holding the whole suite of bills as hostage to the water issue.

I honestly think:
- Arnie may have acted on a one paragraph synopsis written by staff;
- things were so busy nobody gave a sh*t about any details and dealt with things in bulk;
- a few staffers may have thought gunnies would be happy with "2 outta 3" and not understood priorities;
- legal information about Fed conflicts was ignored/blocked/didn't go
up the pipe to more senior staff;

bodger
10-12-2009, 2:55 PM
Everything in politics is Quid Pro Quo it seems.

I'd be intrested to hear Arnie's reasons for vetoing this bill previously, and then signing it and including in his signing letter what a great idea he thinks it is now.

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 2:59 PM
You gotta admit this is a pretty good line--

Ammunition buyers, he said, "are going to be treated like registered sex offenders now.''

razorx
10-12-2009, 3:10 PM
...There were 700 bills on the desk in less to be acted on in less than a day. ...

Define "acted", "signed" would be more precise. Staff had every bill queued up to be signed by Arnold and all pre-approved probably at least a week before with pro-formas defined for several months in advance.

No bill exists in a vacuum and must be weighted according to the overall agenda for the state. Arnold I am quite sure did not want to sign this bill, but needed to for his other agendas. His call.

The battle was lost in the assembly in the fact it got this far. However, an argument can be made that a governor "appearing" to support the law by signing to get votes for other programs knowing that the law will get overturned in court anyway, not a bad move. Of course, I am not suggesting he knew that much about it, but with enough time passing, this will be historically re-interpreted as such.

Overall, this may be better for the national issue regarding restrictions on ammo trade since this can be used to settle the issue in court and put a damper on this spreading to other states.

GuyW
10-12-2009, 3:11 PM
Since he's a moderate - I think Arnie wanted to throw the anti-gunners a bone....
.

rolo
10-12-2009, 3:15 PM
Since he's a moderate - I think Arnie wanted to throw the anti-gunners a bone....
.

Ditto. Everyone compromises with a moderate, even the moderates.

dchang0
10-12-2009, 3:26 PM
I honestly think:
- Arnie may have acted on a one paragraph synopsis written by staff;
- things were so busy nobody gave a sh*t about any details and dealt with things in bulk;
- a few staffers may have thought gunnies would be happy with "2 outta 3" and not understood priorities;
- legal information about Fed conflicts was ignored/blocked/didn't go
up the pipe to more senior staff;

I so totally agree. I'd bet that all of AB962 was handled by one or two staffers and that Arnold never dealt with any of it except to sign it on these staffers' recommendation. Our collective fates may have been decided by one unnamed bureaucrat who made a quick decision to recommend "YES, SIGN IT" to Arnold and then selectively filtered all further information to reinforce his/her initial decision.

(In other words, the staffer's mind was made up, and it would've taken something very high visibility like news coverage of a protest against AB962 to have jarred the bill up to be reconsidered as potentially important and something to warrant the Governor's personal attention. Incidentally, this is why I don't think it was a bad idea for UOCers to "sabre rattle" in parts of the state, because it attracts high-profile media coverage that can bring low-priority stuff up for reconsideration.)

bodger
10-12-2009, 3:30 PM
I so totally agree. I'd bet that all of AB962 was handled by one or two staffers and that Arnold never dealt with any of it except to sign it on these staffers' recommendation. Our collective fates may have been decided by one unnamed bureaucrat who made a quick decision to recommend "YES, SIGN IT" to Arnold and then selectively filtered all further information to reinforce his/her initial decision.

(In other words, the staffer's mind was made up, and it would've taken something very high visibility like news coverage of a protest against AB962 to have jarred the bill up to be reconsidered as potentially important and something to warrant the Governor's personal attention. Incidentally, this is why I don't think it was a bad idea for UOCers to "sabre rattle" in parts of the state, because it attracts high-profile media coverage that can bring low-priority stuff up for reconsideration.)


And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that all of our calls and faxes and e-mails and tweets and twitters were about as effective as one gunny driving by the statehouse and shaking his fist out the window.


And who knows, that "staffer" you mention might be keeping company with DeLeon every night. The way things are up there at the capital it would not surprise me.

dchang0
10-12-2009, 3:35 PM
And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that all of our calls and faxes and e-mails and tweets and twitters were about as effective as one gunny driving by the statehouse and shaking his fist out the window.


And who knows, that "staffer" you mention might be keeping company with DeLeon every night. The way things are up there at the capital it would not surprise me.

Remember, it's gotta be one gunny driving by the statehouse and shaking his fist out of the window with media coverage, LOL. A friend of mine used to work for a US Senator, and he said that incoming calls, mail, and emails just went into a database on which they'd run statistical analysis. But high-profile media events (aka "headline news") got the senior staffers' and sometimes the Senator's attention.

Yeah, I think you may be right about the mysterious "deep throat" staffer and DeLeon keeping company.... They are all bedfellows up there in Sacto.

bodger
10-12-2009, 3:41 PM
Remember, it's gotta be one gunny driving by the statehouse and shaking his fist out of the window with media coverage, LOL. A friend of mine used to work for a US Senator, and he said that incoming calls, mail, and emails just went into a database on which they'd run statistical analysis. But high-profile media events (aka "headline news") got the senior staffers' and sometimes the Senator's attention.

Yeah, I think you may be right about the mysterious "deep throat" staffer and DeLeon keeping company.... They are all bedfellows up there in Sacto.

Yep.
When Mike Duvall ran his mouth about bangin' lobbyists two at a time, we sure got an insider's view of the character of those trying to control us.

hawk1
10-12-2009, 3:50 PM
I think Sam gets a lot of things wrong.

At least he didn't screw the pooch this time like he did with microstamping & lead ammo bans in 2008.

There were 700 bills on the desk in less to be acted on in less than a day. Many more of them would have more leverage with more legislators than this bill - and he was holding the whole suite of bills as hostage to the water issue.

I honestly think:
- Arnie may have acted on a one paragraph synopsis written by staff;
- things were so busy nobody gave a sh*t about any details and dealt with things in bulk;
- a few staffers may have thought gunnies would be happy with "2 outta 3" and not understood priorities;
- legal information about Fed conflicts was ignored/blocked/didn't go
up the pipe to more senior staff;

Really? If thats the case then how can you ask anyone to donate money to Calguns Foundation to fight the good fight?
What you're saying is that no matter what you (the Foundation) does, some no name staffer will do as he pleases with bills on Arnies desk?
I call :icon_bs:
He knew exactly what he was singing and why he signed it.

curtisfong
10-12-2009, 3:51 PM
What you're saying is that no matter what you (the Foundation) does, some no name staffer will do as he pleases with bills on Arnies desk?

Legislative branch != judicial branch
Lobbying != litigating

pnkssbtz
10-12-2009, 3:51 PM
I think Sam gets a lot of things wrong.

At least he didn't screw the pooch this time like he did with microstamping & lead ammo bans in 2008.

There were 700 bills on the desk in less to be acted on in less than a day. Many more of them would have more leverage with more legislators than this bill - and he was holding the whole suite of bills as hostage to the water issue.

I honestly think:
- Arnie may have acted on a one paragraph synopsis written by staff;
- things were so busy nobody gave a sh*t about any details and dealt with things in bulk;
- a few staffers may have thought gunnies would be happy with "2 outta 3" and not understood priorities;
- legal information about Fed conflicts was ignored/blocked/didn't go
up the pipe to more senior staff;
If the part in bold is true, she should of Vetoed it. Period.

In business you don't sign contracts that you don't read. And what he did was force us citizens of California into a contract without reading it.

If you can't take the time to fully look at the bill you veto it.

dfletcher
10-12-2009, 3:51 PM
Everything in politics is Quid Pro Quo it seems.



This is good so far as it goes, but I'd like to walk a bit farther down that path.

If everything is quid pro quo, then we know going in a bill isn't passed or rejected on its merits. It becomes a single debit or a credit in a tally sheet where, at the end of the year, the Governor, the legislature collectively and its members individually sum up who did well, who owes what to who.

I think the entire system guarantees anti "whatever your cause is" bills will be passed and pro "whatever your cause is" bills will be introduced & acted on - not on their merits, but as fodder for quid pro quo and allow the Governor to appear middle of the road. We may think otherwise, but we'd have a tough time convincing the average person he's antigun when he vetoed two bills and signed one.

I think for the most part it's just a trading game void of issues. Unless someone has a bill so outrageous - say, to legalize hunting sea lions using baby condors for bait - it's all about what do you give, what do you get. And the legislators and the Governor know this going in each session.

That's my thoroughly speculative, impossible to support SWAG.

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 3:53 PM
Really? If thats the case then how can you ask anyone to donate money to Calguns Foundation to fight the good fight?
What you're saying is that no matter what you (the Foundation) does, some no name staffer will do as he pleases with bills on Arnies desk?
I call :icon_bs:
He knew exactly what he was singing and why he signed it.

Actually, CGF's primary mission is legal challenges in court.

hawk1
10-12-2009, 4:00 PM
Actually, CGF's primary mission is legal challenges in court.

So am I naive to think this is good for 'them' and their pockets? For fund raising? :confused:

rolo
10-12-2009, 4:02 PM
Yes.

curtisfong
10-12-2009, 4:03 PM
this is good for 'them' and their pockets?

Are we really doing this again? :TFH:

If you can't trust CGF, who can you trust?

hawk1
10-12-2009, 4:08 PM
Are we really doing this again? :TFH:

If you can't trust CGF, who can you trust?

Again? If this was asked before, I don't recall seeing or being part of it.

I just can't fathom Bill dismissing this outcome off on a staffer or anyone of the other excuses he wrote. If this is the case, then I say again, why contribute? The end result will not be what you bargained for or expect. No matter how much $$ flows in...

curtisfong
10-12-2009, 4:12 PM
I just can't fathom Bill dismissing this outcome off on a staffer

Again, you are confusing the legislative branch with the judicial branch, and lobbying with legislating.

CGF cannot do any lobbying.

bwiese
10-12-2009, 4:38 PM
Again? If this was asked before, I don't recall seeing or being part of it.

I just can't fathom Bill dismissing this outcome off on a staffer or anyone of the other excuses he wrote. If this is the case, then I say again, why contribute? The end result will not be what you bargained for or expect. No matter how much $$ flows in...

Please don't confuse legislation with courts. Legislation = sausage.

Please also take off your gunlaw blinders. I know I have to sometimes. In the grand scheme of things, unfortunately, CA is broke, over staffed, most legislators have a variety of petty interests, etc. So there's a ton of BS laws getting thrown up to see what sticks.

There are probably 20 other groups/interests of all political stripes that feel as aggrieved as we do - their bills got vetoes too. This bill was likely 'down list' as were others.

As I hear it govs typ don't read the fine print -except maybe on a couple of key bills. That's what staff is for. The gov probably had a multipage document with a 3-5 line description of each bill, a summary of pro/cons (legal, political, etc.) and a recommended vote. Signing statements - both for and against - were also prepared for many bills in advance [a la newspapers writing/updating obituaries about famous older folk who might drop dead anytime.]

Some years we have good ears to the ground on what went where with what staffers. Other times we don't. This was nutball season.

The insinuation that we'd like bad gunlaws to pass so we can raise money is, um, "highly objectionable" (being polite).

The only bad laws we'd ever like to pass are ones that would, say, rocket us to incorporation or immediate strike-down of some laws. (The possibility of this might exist if Kamala Harris becomes state AG and tries whacked-out hyper-Allison-grade enforcement.) Otherwise such fights are dilutionary and diversionary.

CGF runs small and light. We'd prefer that asscr*p like these laws never pass so we can spend the money on getting folks out of jail and attacking EXISTING laws, and/or renewed enforcment by DOJ when Kamala Harris becomes AG.

CGF board members take no money, benefits, etc. We pay for our own staples, phone time, meals, travel, etc. - and for issues of "business presence" (phone, fax, etc.) we're grateful to Gene Hoffman & his biz as well as Ben Cannon's computer services to get these items covered.

Aside from that, our cluster of CA Coalition gun lawyers are well-versed in areas outside of gun law (i.e., just generally good lawyers). Frankly, the less gun law they practice, the more regular law they can practice - and they make much more money on those cases! Understand that while they are compensated, it's also a labor of love and passion for rights and for folks with similar mindsets. Chuck Michel is a perfect example - he's gonna make way, way more on an enviro law case involving, say, defending corporations from whackjob enviro claims than he ever will challenging a DOJ regulation or for helping someone popped for some firearms violation. Don Kilmer runs a successful family & civil rights litigation practice in Silicon Valley outside his gun work; Jason Davis is also practicing general criminal & civil law wholly outside his firearms expertise. Alan Gura has yet to be paid for his long arduous work in Heller, besides having a general appellate practice.
The nature, as well as committment to our shared end goal, of these fine legal eagles helps your gunrights dollar go much further than in typical corporate law with by-the-minute timecards, $1-$2/page photocopies, etc.

Eckolaker
10-12-2009, 4:49 PM
I honestly think:
- Arnie may have acted on a one paragraph synopsis written by staff;
- things were so busy nobody gave a sh*t about any details and dealt with things in bulk;
- a few staffers may have thought gunnies would be happy with "2 outta 3" and not understood priorities;
- legal information about Fed conflicts was ignored/blocked/didn't go
up the pipe to more senior staff;

No offense intended here..

But I think you give the guy far too much credit or reprieve for signing the bill.

I personally do not think Arnold was in any way ignorant on this bill, its text, and intended future implementation.

What worries me most is the next set of Civilian Disarmament Bills coming before the end of the year.

For example, a bill that would require all existing ammunition cache's to be registered.

wildhawker
10-12-2009, 4:51 PM
I'll bet your stash that we won't see it.

No offense intended here..

But I think you give the guy far too much credit or reprieve for signing the bill.

I personally do not think Arnold was in any way ignorant on this bill, its text, and intended future implementation.

What worries me most is the next set of Civilian Disarmament Bills coming before the end of the year.

For example, a bill that would require all existing ammunition cache's to be registered.

Sleepy1988
10-12-2009, 4:52 PM
Since he's a moderate - I think Arnie wanted to throw the anti-gunners a bone....
.

The problem is they always demand more bones.

wellerjohn
10-12-2009, 4:53 PM
Just wait until that Dianne Feinstein is governor,we are in big trouble. They don't care what we think.

M.45
10-12-2009, 4:56 PM
Just wait until that Dianne Feinstein is governor,we are in big trouble. They don't care what we think.

*shiver*

elSquid
10-12-2009, 5:34 PM
I personally do not think Arnold was in any way ignorant on this bill, its text, and intended future implementation.

What worries me most is the next set of Civilian Disarmament Bills coming before the end of the year.

I doubt the Governor is trying to implement any sort of far reaching disarmament plan.

Example:

AB1645

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10152

Fairfax, VA - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed legislation to prevent the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding Californians during a future state of emergency or natural disaster, as happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Assembly Bill 1645 was introduced in the General Assembly by Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa (R-2).

So there he actively backed anti-confiscation legislation.

As far as AB962 goes... I guess you can't win 'em all. But after McDonald, we should be able to roll back a lot of ineffectual firearms legislation.

-- Michael

grnt
10-12-2009, 5:52 PM
He's a Kennedy by marriage. A closet liberal. He signed this bill to appeal the democrats. Once he is washed out of governorship, he is shooting for something in the Administration. That's how it works.

M. Sage
10-12-2009, 5:54 PM
I honestly think:
- Arnie may have acted on a one paragraph synopsis written by staff;
- things were so busy nobody gave a sh*t about any details and dealt with things in bulk;
- a few staffers may have thought gunnies would be happy with "2 outta 3" and not understood priorities;
- legal information about Fed conflicts was ignored/blocked/didn't go
up the pipe to more senior staff;

I think it's the roids. They seem to have dropped his IQ below that of the common house plant. :mad:

B Strong
10-12-2009, 6:00 PM
Really? If thats the case then how can you ask anyone to donate money to Calguns Foundation to fight the good fight? What you're saying is that no matter what you (the Foundation) does, some no name staffer will do as he pleases with bills on Arnies desk?
I call :icon_bs:
He knew exactly what he was singing and why he signed it.

Because if we don't fight, we have no chance of winning, and it takes money to get things done.

Every time a gunnie gives up because we have a loss, the anti's win.

Every time some out-of-state dealer decides not to ship legal firearms into California because they don't like California firearms laws, the anti's win.

There is only one way to win against our enemies - that is to never give up!

I don't care what they throw at us, I'll just pull out the check book and write more checks.

B Strong
10-12-2009, 6:04 PM
I think it's the roids. They seem to have dropped his IQ below that of the common house plant. :mad:

It's a proven medical fact that one of the side effect of steroid abuse is shrinking of the Testicles...

Lone_Gunman
10-12-2009, 6:08 PM
Just wait until that Dianne Feinstein is governor,we are in big trouble. They don't care what we think.

I have said that I will stay and fight but that is my line in the sand. If she is governor I am out of here.

scratch
10-12-2009, 6:09 PM
I received this from Jerry at Western Hunter....even if it was written by a staffer, seems like he knew what he was doing and he put his name on it....no excuses as far as I'm concerned....

WesternHunter.com
Important Message

October 12, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Calif. Governor
Gut Shoots Firearms Owners


Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB962, the Mail order Ammo Ban.

Here is his statement of why he turned on gun owners and hunters.

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am signing Assembly Bill 962.
This measure would require vendors of handgun ammunition to keep a log of information on handgun ammunition sales, store ammunition in a safe and secure manner, and require the faceto-face transfer of ammunition sales. Although I have previously vetoed legislation similar to this measure, local governments have demonstrated that requiring ammunition vendors to keep records on ammunition sales improves public safety.

These records have allowed law enforcement to arrest and prosecute persons who have no business possessing firearms and ammunition: gang members, violent parolees, second and third strikers, and even people previously serving time in state prison for murder. Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe and preventing dangerous felons from committing crimes with firearms.

Moreover, this type of recordkeeping is no more intrusive for law abiding citizens than similar laws governing pawnshops or the sale of cold medicine. Unfortunately, even the most successful local program is flawed; without a statewide law, felons can easily skirt the record keeping requirements of one city by visiting another. Assembly Bill 962 will fix this problem by mandating that all ammunition vendors in the state keep records on ammunition sales.

As Governor, I have sought the appropriate balance between public safety and the right to keep and bear arms. I have signed important public safety measures to regulate the sale and transfer of .50 caliber rifles, instituted the California Firearms License Check program, and promoted the use of microstamping technology in handguns. I have also vetoed many pieces of legislation that sought to place unreasonable restrictions and burdens on firearms dealers and ammunition vendors.

Assembly Bill 962 reasonably regulates access to ammunition and improves public safety without placing undue burdens on consumers.

For these reasons, I am pleased to sign this bill.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 6:10 PM
I think it's the roids. They seem to have dropped his IQ below that of the common house plant. :mad:

Uh, Moderator, have you not read the Please Show Respect to the Governor (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230639)thread? :)

Sgt Raven
10-12-2009, 6:58 PM
Just wait until that Dianne Feinstein is governor,we are in big trouble. They don't care what we think.

Not a chance in Hell of that.

RP1911
10-12-2009, 7:47 PM
I honestly think:
- Arnie may have acted on a one paragraph synopsis written by staff;

This.

DAMHIK.

hoffmang
10-12-2009, 9:30 PM
I'm amused. In another thread today CGF was whined at for not disclosing that there is a tenable legal challenge to the bill because we wanted people to keep fighting and hopefully veto the bill. In this thread we're whined at because someone thinks we have a motive to let the bill pass so we can fight it in court...

The truth is that we thought NRA/CRPA had this bill beat in the Senate by 1 vote and that vote mislead the pro-gun side. The staffer running the bill for the Governor is not our friend, but the Governor is hard to predict so we didn't assume that a bad staffer meant the bill was going to pass. Heck, I would have bet people that the Governor would have signed SB-41 - but he chose to veto it.

Only a limited amount of CGF's time and treasure go into lobbying because that's the rules. NRA and CRPA did a good job on this but at the end of the day our elected officials decided to take some liberty from we the law abiding. It sucks, but those are the battles we fight here.

-Gene

srmc
10-12-2009, 9:40 PM
This result is really no surprise if you know who is working inside the horseshoe. Apart from a few token Republicans, the Governor is now surrounded by Democrats who previously worked for Bill Lockyer and Gray Davis. I highly doubt that we have an advocate on the inside, so anything short of registration and confiscation is likely to be found "reasonable."

dchang0
10-12-2009, 9:42 PM
Only a limited amount of CGF's time and treasure go into lobbying because that's the rules. NRA and CRPA did a good job on this but at the end of the day our elected officials decided to take some liberty from we the law abiding. It sucks, but those are the battles we fight here.

-Gene

Gene, you do what you do, and you do it well, and that's all we could ever ask of you. Leave the other fronts for those who choose to fight on those fronts. The whole effort will be won by millions of volunteers and not by a handful of herculean heroes.

To the whiners: we lost one battle, but we're going to win the war. A particularly poignant quote: "In a knife fight, you're going to get cut." That doesn't mean you want to get cut, nor does it mean that you shouldn't try to avoid getting cut. All it means is that you should be mentally prepared for possible losses, and those of you out there who can't handle a small (or even big loss) before you start whining just aren't in touch with reality.

This is a struggle to the death between the anti-gunners who want our kind (gun-owners) eradicated and us, the remaining patriots of this country's original ideals. Any life or death struggle requires an overwhelming desire to win in the face of any losses in order to be won.

250rah
10-12-2009, 10:09 PM
He was just on the news talking about his water issues a few minutes ago

tenpercentfirearms
10-12-2009, 10:32 PM
I am having a hard time believing that the Governor didn't know the amount of calls he was getting to veto AB 962. I just don't believe he has so much on his plate he didn't understand this or what it meant to us and eventually to him.

I hold him responsible plain and simple. I don't think we could have called any less than we did or fought to veto this any harder than we did. In the end, the Governor choose to screw us over for some side deal.

I want to do a PRAR and find out exactly how many contacts he received on each side. Maybe Oaklander can help me with that.

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-12-2009, 11:33 PM
No idea. Ask Gator, since Republicans are the only viable 2A Candidates.

hoffmang
10-12-2009, 11:44 PM
No idea. Ask Gator, since Republicans are the only viable 2A Candidates.

But just like Gator, Republicans are currently banned from California too! :smilielol5:

-Gene

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-12-2009, 11:46 PM
But just like Gator, Republicans are currently banned from California too! :smilielol5:

-Gene

http://a1.phobos.apple.com/us/r30/Purple/5d/c4/be/mzl.mdwscbvc.480x480-75.jpg

Mitch
10-13-2009, 7:33 AM
I honestly think:
- Arnie may have acted on a one paragraph synopsis written by staff;
- things were so busy nobody gave a sh*t about any details and dealt with things in bulk;
- a few staffers may have thought gunnies would be happy with "2 outta 3" and not understood priorities;
- legal information about Fed conflicts was ignored/blocked/didn't go
up the pipe to more senior staff;

Occam's Razor suggests Schwarzenegger, who began his gubernatorial campaign with an endorsement of gun control, simply thinks the ammunition ban is a good idea.

Paratus et Vigilans
10-13-2009, 8:04 AM
FWIW, I believe he knew what he was doing in signing the bill. I think he wanted to show the "other side" and the non-aligned what he might do if ever elected to the U.S. Senate. That is all that's left for him in politics. He can't run for president as a non-native born citizen, and a house seat is just too small a stage for him. He's done with the movies. He's got all the money he'll ever need. What else could hold any interest for him but politics? No, he wants to be a U.S. Senator and his "people" are telling him that to run for a CA senate seat as a Republican he has to capture enough Dems and non-affiliated voters to defeat a Democratic candidate. How to do that? Show he has the "guts" to go against his party and the conservative right and sign a bill that is unpopular with them, but good for public safety (the other side's argument, not mine!), to show them all that he's his own man and not fully in one camp or the other. This, I believe, is what went on at the staff/advisor level. The "top line" for Arnold was this: "Sign it, Mr. Governor. It will be good for your senate bid." Period. He paid for good help, so he's going to take the political advice that his hired help gives him. Maybe he even got told that it's a give-away anyway because the law won't pass scrutiny under Federal pre-emption, so he can have it both ways. Sign it to appeal to a certain voter segment, and do so knowing that it's an empty act since the law will never go into effect. Of course, I may be all wet and be totally off base, but that's what I think.

Mitch
10-13-2009, 8:09 AM
Werd up, Paratus.

paratroop
10-13-2009, 8:39 AM
eh, you win some you lose some. i just want to thank everyone on the front lines of this fight.

Eckolaker
10-13-2009, 12:02 PM
I'll bet your stash that we won't see it.

What do you mean Stash?

Saving this post for future reference.

mtptwo
10-13-2009, 12:19 PM
Why is it everytime Arnold signs an antigun bill into law, Calgunners make up excuses for him? "Someone made him mad", "He is trading votes", etc...

Did anyone ever stop and think that Arnold is just plain anitgun?

mtptwo
10-13-2009, 12:21 PM
FWIW, I believe he knew what he was doing in signing the bill. I think he wanted to show the "other side" and the non-aligned what he might do if ever elected to the U.S. Senate. That is all that's left for him in politics. He can't run for president as a non-native born citizen, and a house seat is just too small a stage for him. He's done with the movies. He's got all the money he'll ever need. What else could hold any interest for him but politics? No, he wants to be a U.S. Senator and his "people" are telling him that to run for a CA senate seat as a Republican he has to capture enough Dems and non-affiliated voters to defeat a Democratic candidate. How to do that? Show he has the "guts" to go against his party and the conservative right and sign a bill that is unpopular with them, but good for public safety (the other side's argument, not mine!), to show them all that he's his own man and not fully in one camp or the other. This, I believe, is what went on at the staff/advisor level. The "top line" for Arnold was this: "Sign it, Mr. Governor. It will be good for your senate bid." Period. He paid for good help, so he's going to take the political advice that his hired help gives him. Maybe he even got told that it's a give-away anyway because the law won't pass scrutiny under Federal pre-emption, so he can have it both ways. Sign it to appeal to a certain voter segment, and do so knowing that it's an empty act since the law will never go into effect. Of course, I may be all wet and be totally off base, but that's what I think.

If he thinks he will get into the senate with his track record of governor, he is sadly mistaken.

jdberger
10-13-2009, 12:29 PM
Just wait until that Dianne Feinstein is governor,we are in big trouble. They don't care what we think.

Or HR 45 passes...

Both are equally likely.... :rolleyes:

Mitch
10-13-2009, 12:29 PM
If he thinks he will get into the senate with his track record of governor, he is sadly mistaken.

Track record? Who cares about track record, he's a movie star.

I met numerous people who wanted to elect him governor before he ever opened his mouth about what he would do with the office if elected.

Universal suffrage ain't just a river in Egypt.

grnt
10-13-2009, 5:06 PM
Senator Arnie of Massachusetts. How does that sound?