PDA

View Full Version : R candidate Tom Campbell reiterates his antigun status...


bwiese
10-13-2009, 11:54 AM
Tom Campbell replied to questions of Calgunner 'dfletcher' on his website/forum, and this was posted at the tail of another thread.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Campbell on guns:

[I]"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."

M1A Rifleman
10-13-2009, 11:55 AM
Thanks for confirming that he will NOT get my support or vote.

Sgt Raven
10-13-2009, 11:59 AM
TC needs to be sent back to private life, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00.

bwiese
10-13-2009, 12:06 PM
And the funny thing is some posters will follow this up, "But Jerry Brown wanted 50BMG banned..." and not realizing that whatever he says on these matters was during an election battle with a question stupidly pushed by the other side - and irrelevant because of his amicus brief and other actions plus a 20 year favorable-comments-on-2A. Tom Campbell doesn't (and won't) have that undercurrent.

gewgaw
10-13-2009, 12:13 PM
And the funny thing is some posters will follow this up, "But Jerry Brown wanted 50BMG banned..." and not realizing that whatever he says on these matters was during an election battle with a question stupidly pushed by the other side - and irrelevant because of his amicus brief and other actions plus a 20 year favorable-comments-on-2A. Tom Campbell doesn't (and won't) have that undercurrent.

There's an awful lot of knee-jerk, unthinkingly-reflexive commenters on this board... I just hope when they go to vote, they aren't as rash. Is that hoping for too much though? :rolleyes:

madmike
10-13-2009, 12:18 PM
I don't need to be hit upside the head to get the point. This guy is no friend of ours.

-madmike.

MolonLabe2008
10-13-2009, 12:18 PM
Tom Campbell sucks!

Oh! By the way, did we get any response back from Jerry Brown on said issues?

boxbro
10-13-2009, 12:20 PM
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."

And since the "restrictions already in place on the sale of firearms" were so ineffective we need to pass another ineffective law to prevent them from loading those firearms we couldn't prevent them from obtaining.

bwiese
10-13-2009, 12:22 PM
Tom Campbell sucks!

Oh! By the way, did we get any response back from Jerry Brown on said issues?

We don't need it. The amicus brief on RKBA says it all. Let's not pull a Poochigian.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
10-13-2009, 12:27 PM
He keeps going back to "field artillery." Cause of all the times artillery has been used to rob a liquor store. It's not useful to gang bangers, the same way .50 bmg is also pointless to them.

bulgron
10-13-2009, 12:27 PM
I think I'm going to register as a Democrat just so I can assured of voting for Brown in the primaries. None of the Republican candidates get my support for Governor, especially after Benedict Arnold screwed us on AB 962. And Brown is a thousand times better than Gruesome Newsome, so ....

bulgron
10-13-2009, 12:30 PM
He keeps going back to "field artillery." Cause of all the times artillery has been used to rob a liquor store. It's not useful to gang bangers, the same way .50 bmg is also pointless to them.

Besides, the people in the 1770 can and did privately own cannon. When the British marched on Concord, one of the things they did is confiscate cannon privately owned there and took steps to render them inoperable. It sort of started a tiny little war.

Paul E
10-13-2009, 12:36 PM
Its sad how badly these politicians truly miss the point that our founding fathers had in mind. Guns werent around simply for self defense and simply to help people police...it was there to intimidate and scare our politicians. It sounds rash and crude, but they wanted our leaders to fear us.

oldrifle
10-13-2009, 12:37 PM
This is really disappointing because I like Tom Campbell on every single issue except on guns. I sent him an email asking about his general opinion on gun rights and this is what I got:

Dear oldrifle,

I was very happy to receive your email and thank you for taking the time
to ask me about my position on the second amendment. Here are my views,
which I hold with great respect for reasonable people who might feel
differently:

1) The US Constitution guarantees a personal right to keep firearms. The US
Supreme Court has recently so held.
2) The federal government can regulate the interstate traffic of such
firearms, so long as they do not thereby overcome the fundamental right.
3) Since the 2nd Amendment was geared to the risk of federal government
encroachment, rather than state government's actions, the states have
greater power than the federal government to regulate firearms. (The recent
US Supreme Court opinion on the 2nd Amendment did not reach this question,
since it dealt with a District of Columbia law, not a state law.)
4) I favor different solutions for different parts of California: a weapon
reasonable to keep in farm or mountain country might be unreasonable to keep
in a major city.
5) Whether state or federal, reasonable regulations could include the
banning the private ownership of exceptionally dangerous weapons, such as
high velocity large capacity fully automatic weapons, armor piercing
bullets, ordnance, and nuclear devices.

I recognize, oldrifle, that I can be wrong on any of these points: so I
welcome learning your point of view as well.

Kindly,
Tom

His answers seems pretty vague so I wrote a follow-up email asking for clarification on things like the AWB, etc and never got a response.

It seems like he's open to other points of view, but I'm not too confident he'll change his mind too far from what he's chosen to believe. Sadly, I will now definitely NOT support Tom after reading this thread.

oldrifle
10-13-2009, 12:40 PM
Its sad how badly these politicians truly miss the point that our founding fathers had in mind. Guns werent around simply for self defense and simply to help people police...it was there to intimidate and scare our politicians.

Do I really need to point out the irony here? The more they feel threatened by us, the more laws they'll make.

wash
10-13-2009, 12:44 PM
Anyone that can get to a point where they would send the email Bill quoted doesn't have enough sense to govern me.

Don't try to fix him, he's ready for the scrap heap.

BigEd925
10-13-2009, 12:44 PM
Tom Campbell does NOT have my vote

Harrison_Bergeron
10-13-2009, 12:46 PM
I haven't really followed what is happening as far as the next gubernatorial race, I'm not even sure when it is, but I am wondering if this is a CGN(community, not site) endorsed idea. In other words, is there a down side to doing this?

I think I'm going to register as a Democrat just so I can assured of voting for Brown in the primaries.


Also, for those on the fence about open primaries, changing parties to make sure a good dem gets in would be unnecessary with open primaries.

ac427cpe
10-13-2009, 12:47 PM
gotta love how he takes the wording of the 2A to mean what he wants in a modern context...

"militia" might have been correct: even by today's standards it just means able-bodied and 17-45 years old.

HOWEVER, the part that irks me, "well regulated" in the context that it was written does NOT mean controlled. It means WELL TRAINED or CORRECTLY DISCIPLINED.

/endrant.

mblat
10-13-2009, 12:47 PM
Not like I WAS going to vote for him....... but that kind of cements it....

dantodd
10-13-2009, 12:48 PM
This is really disappointing because I like Tom Campbell on every single issue except on guns. I sent him an email asking about his general opinion on gun rights and this is what I got:

Dear oldrifle,

I was very happy to receive your email and thank you for taking the time
to ask me about my position on the second amendment. Here are my views,
which I hold with great respect for reasonable people who might feel
differently:

1) The US Constitution guarantees a personal right to keep firearms. The US
Supreme Court has recently so held.
2) The federal government can regulate the interstate traffic of such
firearms, so long as they do not thereby overcome the fundamental right.
3) Since the 2nd Amendment was geared to the risk of federal government
encroachment, rather than state government's actions, the states have
greater power than the federal government to regulate firearms. (The recent
US Supreme Court opinion on the 2nd Amendment did not reach this question,
since it dealt with a District of Columbia law, not a state law.)
4) I favor different solutions for different parts of California: a weapon
reasonable to keep in farm or mountain country might be unreasonable to keep
in a major city.
5) Whether state or federal, reasonable regulations could include the
banning the private ownership of exceptionally dangerous weapons, such as
high velocity large capacity fully automatic weapons, armor piercing
bullets, ordnance, and nuclear devices.


His answers seems pretty vague so I wrote a follow-up email asking for clarification on things like the AWB, etc and never got a response.

It seems like he's open to other points of view, but I'm not too confident he'll change his mind too far from what he's chosen to believe. Sadly, I will now definitely NOT support Tom after reading this thread.

Doesn't seem that vague to me....

1) ok
2) ok; but we'll find in later points that we will disagree on what "overcomes" a fundamental right.
3) Bad Tom!!! He is clearly saying that he does not support the incorporation of the second amendment. This is one point in which he is in direct opposition to Jerry Brown and Brown is on our side.
4) Bad Tom!!!! He believes that the second amendment applies differently to people with different zip codes. This is patently false, I wonder if he feels any other fundamental enumerated rights in the BoR shares the same disparate application?
5) Bad Bad Bad Tom!!!! He thinks the state OR feds can limit magazine capacity and outright ban guns they deem "exceptionally dangerous." He has stated that he feels the AWB falls under this category though I would like to know if he feels the handguns fall under this category for those who live in certain zip codes in light of his comment in #4.

oldrifle
10-13-2009, 12:50 PM
I think I'm going to register as a Democrat just so I can assured of voting for Brown in the primaries..

Wait... why is a good idea? Isn't he buddies with Box, Feinstein and Pelosi?

dantodd
10-13-2009, 12:52 PM
Wait... why is a good idea? Isn't he buddies with Box, Feinstein and Pelosi?

read through the numerous threads here talking about AG Brown. In short, he wrote an amicus brief in Chicago urging SCOTUS to grant cert and hear the case. He has also reduced the power of the gun grabbers in the AG's office during his tenure and has generally been considerably less offensive to our 2A rights than any of the republican gubernatorial candidates.

oldrifle
10-13-2009, 12:57 PM
Sad... I just sent this to Tom:


Dear Tom,

After reading your response to a questioner on your forum (quoted below), I regret that I will not be able to support your campaign. I will also make sure other gun owners are aware of your position so they are informed as to what they're voting for in the primary. It's distressing because you're right on so many issues, but you're very wrong when it comes to the second amendment.

Regretfully,
oldrifle

oldrifle
10-13-2009, 12:58 PM
read through the numerous threads here talking about AG Brown. In short, he wrote an amicus brief in Chicago urging SCOTUS to grant cert and hear the case. He has also reduced the power of the gun grabbers in the AG's office during his tenure and has generally been considerably less offensive to our 2A rights than any of the republican gubernatorial candidates.

It's a sad day for Republicans, then. :(

Meant Boxer BTW... :P

oldrifle
10-13-2009, 1:00 PM
Doesn't seem that vague to me....

I know, but I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to his views on the specific restrictions. My analysis was the same yours. Bummer :(

Paratus et Vigilans
10-13-2009, 1:02 PM
Well, fail.

Phil3
10-13-2009, 1:05 PM
I sent Tom Campbell an e-mail and let him know that given his firearms positions, I can not support him, instead supporting his opposition. I stated he not only lost the vote of my wife and I, but those votes will appear in his opposition's column.

elSquid
10-13-2009, 1:06 PM
In short, he wrote an amicus brief in Chicago urging SCOTUS to grant cert and hear the case.

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf

California has a strong interest in protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens. But unlike many states, California has no state constitutional counterpart to the Second Amendment. Unless the protections of the Second Amendment extend to citizens living in the States as well as to those living in federal enclaves, California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

This Court recently held that the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from denying citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). But the decision did not resolve the more important question of whether this limitation applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitions in these cases should be granted so the Court may address this question. In granting the petitions and ruling upon the merits, the Court should extend to the states Heller’s core Second-Amendment holding that the government cannot deny citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes, but also provide guidance on the scope of the States’ ability to reasonably regulate firearms.

:thumbsup:

Anyone who listened to the Nordyke audio probably chuckled when this brief was brought up...

-- Michael

dantodd
10-13-2009, 1:13 PM
It's a sad day for Republicans, then. :(


I would suspect that California Republicans are pretty used to sad days. They reap what they sow.

Dwight K. Schrute
10-13-2009, 1:17 PM
The Governor is the last line of defense, but we need to stop legislation from getting to him/her. We need to focus on the State Assembly and State Senate. We should work to prevent legislation like AB 962 from ever reaching the Governor's desk. Now, how do we work together to take out idiots like DeLeon?

dfletcher
10-13-2009, 1:31 PM
Three antigun Republicans, one virulently antigun Democrat and one Democrat who can't come to the dance because he's still married, so to speak - these are our choices in 2010.

I do give Candidate Campbell credit for answering directly, unlike Miss Whitman.

oldrifle
10-13-2009, 1:33 PM
Should I run for Governor instead guys? Just LMK, I'm down. :cool:

Flopper
10-13-2009, 1:34 PM
What's sad is how uninformed he is about firearms issues and firearms in general.

Even though I shouldn't be, I continue to be amazed at how effective the years of propaganda and misinformation have been to suppress the rights of the citizenry.

Legasat
10-13-2009, 1:52 PM
This is going to be "one of those" elections.

The least offensive candidate towards 2A is a wingnut about most other things!

I am NOT looking forward to this.

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 1:58 PM
Tom Campbell replied to questions of Calgunner 'dfletcher' on his website/forum, and this was posted at the tail of another thread.

[I'm taking the liberty of requoting them here given the importance.

Damn. I really need some sit-down time with that boy.

bwiese
10-13-2009, 2:06 PM
Damn. I really need some sit-down time with that boy.

Bring a horsewhip and mind-altering drugs, those'll be the only things useful.

He's toast.

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 2:09 PM
Bring a horsewhip and mind-altering drugs, those'll be the only things useful.

He's toast.

I guess he's decided to let belief overtake the law.

I suspect, however, he's going to wind up as a front-runner in the GOP nomination.

http://chuckles48.livejournal.com/363374.html

gbp
10-13-2009, 2:20 PM
We don't need it. The amicus brief on RKBA says it all. Let's not pull a Poochigian.

Not trying to start a bunch of bs, but perhaps YOU don't need it BUT I Do So let him answere the same ??'s with the same honesty right now , not tomorrow but NOW!! If he answeres approprately, and follows through on his statements as a man of integrety, he may just get my vote
but lets not kid ourselves here all politicians lie

FullMetalJacket
10-13-2009, 2:23 PM
Too bad.

I've heard him on the radio many times and agree with him on a lot. I'm a single-issue voter where it comes to any of my Constitutional rights; I simply can't support someone who would undermine them.

If it comes down to him and someone else, he'll only get my vote if the other option is worse.

CalNRA
10-13-2009, 2:26 PM
Bring a horsewhip and mind-altering drugs, those'll be the only things useful.

He's toast.

Bill, I don't know what you know, but whatever it is, count me out.

5hundo
10-13-2009, 2:34 PM
He probably thinks he cannot win without taking that position...

...or, he's the polar opposite of a "Blue Dog" Democrat.

Aptos
10-13-2009, 2:34 PM
Wow!

That response really dampers my support for Tom Campbell. I agree with him on nearly every issue but his response to that single e-mail makes me not want to support him at all.

But respect to Tom Campbell for having the balls to give a real answer.

SteveH
10-13-2009, 2:38 PM
And the funny thing is some posters will follow this up, "But Jerry Brown wanted 50BMG banned..." and not realizing that whatever he says on these matters was during an election battle with a question stupidly pushed by the other side - and irrelevant because of his amicus brief and other actions plus a 20 year favorable-comments-on-2A. Tom Campbell doesn't (and won't) have that undercurrent.

There should be no comparisons made between any democrat and any republican until after the primary elections. We should be working to elect both the most progun republican and most progun democrat in the primaries first. Only after the primaries does it matter which is the better candidate for gun owners.

Keep trashing Campbell and you get Meg. instead you should be building up the most progun Republican and the most progun democrat.

pguevara
10-13-2009, 2:41 PM
Here's an example of Mr. Campbell's understanding of the Second Amendment on Mr. Campbell's website at http://campbell.org/2nd-amendment.

Dubliner wrote:

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

"Do you support the current CA high capacity magazine ban?

Based on Mr. Cambell's belief that the Second Amendment is an individual right and the fact that Heller has held that it's a right to self-defense and not merely to bear arms for hunting or shooting targets, the AWB and 10+ round magazine ban are indefensible and an answer should be "no" to both questions.

While one can make a reasonable argument that limiting semi-automatic rifles to non-detachable magazines that carry not more than 10 rounds is appropriate for hunting and target shooting (the reasoning behind the AWB), such a limit would severely restrict the the right to defend oneself with arms (which the Second Amendment guarantees). If someone is going to threaten a person with a semi-auto rifle, does one really expect that threat's rifle to have non-detachable magazine with not more than 10 rounds?

The response from Tom Campbell:

Heller v District of Columbia, the US Supreme Court decision of last year, as you know, did not reach this question. Indeed, Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion, explicitly left open what kind of restraints would be reasonable. What was unreasonable was for the District of Columbia to ban all private ownership of handguns.

We'll see what the Court decides, in future cases, but I must confess having difficulty going where your rule would lead us.As I read you, you'd support the private ownership of any weapon useful for self-defense. The right to self defense, for example, might include the right to keep and use kevlar-piercing bullets, since an assailant might be wearing a bullet proof vest. I, however, would side with police men and women who believe it is a reasonable restraint on otherwise valid Second Amendment rights not to allow private ownership of such bullets. Why? Because the overwhelmingly likely use of "cop-killer" bullets is just that, and the likelihood that an assailant or a home-invader will be wearing a vest is very low. But not zero--so you'd have to allow the cop-killer bullets in private hands, and I would not. I would say it was a reasonable regulation, since the Second Amendment allows the militia, that is, the citizenry, to be well regulated in connection with their personal right to keep and bear arms.

This is the sort of balance that the US Supreme Court has made for years regarding other parts of the Bill of Rights. For instance, the 4th Amendment requires that a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched." Yet in the PATRIOT Act, the US is allowed to seek a "roving" wiretap, applicable to whatever cell phone or land line a suspected foreign terrorist might want to use.

I guess he does not know that there is no law (even in California) that prevents a homeowner from using for self defense common rifle ammo such as the .223 or .308 that can pierce ballistic vests. Do we really want misinformed politicians determining what "reasonable" under Heller means?

gbp
10-13-2009, 2:44 PM
Wow!

That response really dampers my support for Tom Campbell. I agree with him on nearly every issue but his response to that single e-mail makes me not want to support him at all.

But respect to Tom Campbell for having the balls to give a real answer.

Thats why i want the same ??'s proposed to JB and see if we get an honest answere out of anybody, but when you have a majority of one party voting ONE way that basically is indicating to me that sooner or later (no matter what they say now) they will follow party lines (Of coarse that does not include the current gov in wolfs cloths)

I keep hoping for someone that will honestly represent gun owners of california (no matter what party)
Haven't seen it yet

=Mike=
10-13-2009, 2:49 PM
"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."

"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."

I don't know any cops that think this way, the ones I know have a spine.

SickofSoCal
10-13-2009, 2:50 PM
Sorry Tom, you just screwed yourself.


We don't need another turncoat Republican.....

Doug L
10-13-2009, 2:54 PM
Tom Campbell has always been a dork.

madmike
10-13-2009, 2:54 PM
The response from Tom Campbell:


Quote:
"Heller v District of Columbia, the US Supreme Court decision of last year, as you know, did not reach this question. Indeed, Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion, explicitly left open what kind of restraints would be reasonable. What was unreasonable was for the District of Columbia to ban all private ownership of handguns.

We'll see what the Court decides, in future cases, but I must confess having difficulty going where your rule would lead us.As I read you, you'd support the private ownership of any weapon useful for self-defense. The right to self defense, for example, might include the right to keep and use kevlar-piercing bullets, since an assailant might be wearing a bullet proof vest. I, however, would side with police men and women who believe it is a reasonable restraint on otherwise valid Second Amendment rights not to allow private ownership of such bullets. Why? Because the overwhelmingly likely use of "cop-killer" bullets is just that, and the likelihood that an assailant or a home-invader will be wearing a vest is very low. But not zero--so you'd have to allow the cop-killer bullets in private hands, and I would not. I would say it was a reasonable regulation, since the Second Amendment allows the militia, that is, the citizenry, to be well regulated in connection with their personal right to keep and bear arms.

This is the sort of balance that the US Supreme Court has made for years regarding other parts of the Bill of Rights. For instance, the 4th Amendment requires that a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched." Yet in the PATRIOT Act, the US is allowed to seek a "roving" wiretap, applicable to whatever cell phone or land line a suspected foreign terrorist might want to use."

Sounds like he doesn't respect the 4th Amendment either...
This guy is a joke.

-madmike.

donstarr
10-13-2009, 3:07 PM
I would say it was a reasonable regulation, since the Second Amendment allows the militia, that is, the citizenry, to be well regulated in connection with their personal right to keep and bear arms.
And, as was mentioned elsewhere, Campbell doesn't even understand what "well regulated" means in the context of the Second Amendment.

Perhaps one of his constituents (or someone who has been engaged in correspondence with him) might point out that the term does not mean "subject to regulations imposed by a legislature".

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 3:07 PM
He probably thinks he cannot win without taking that position...

...or, he's the polar opposite of a "Blue Dog" Democrat.

He is, unfortunately, a product of the Chicago mindset, wherein it appears all guns are evil.

I've argued the law with him on this, AND thrown real-world examples of his cases about freaking out at public carry back (this summer was really great in that regard). But he refuses to be swayed. And I suspect, but can not prove, that it has a lot to do with his origins.

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 3:08 PM
And, as was mentioned elsewhere, Campbell doesn't even understand what "well regulated" means in the context of the Second Amendment.

Perhaps one of his constituents (or someone who has been engaged in correspondence with him) might point out that the term does not mean "subject to regulations imposed by a legislature".

Ummm, actually, it does. The Constitution is pretty explicit that Congress shall have the power to promulgate regulations for the militia. If you think otherwise, well, you're definitely smoking something.

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 3:10 PM
The response from Tom Campbell:


Quote:
This is the sort of balance that the US Supreme Court has made for years regarding other parts of the Bill of Rights. For instance, the 4th Amendment requires that a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched." Yet in the PATRIOT Act, the US is allowed to seek a "roving" wiretap, applicable to whatever cell phone or land line a suspected foreign terrorist might want to use."

Sounds like he doesn't respect the 4th Amendment either...
This guy is a joke.

-madmike.

Mike--He's a business lawyer, when it comes right down to it. And on a _legal_basis, he's simply saying "this is what the law is."

You'll note in the part I snipped, he doesn't say whether he supports that position or not. Your attribution of it...is beneath you.

And, honestly, aside from 2A issues, he's a pretty sharp guy. It's when you get into 2A issues that he gets off the horse.

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 3:11 PM
There should be no comparisons made between any democrat and any republican until after the primary elections. We should be working to elect both the most progun republican and most progun democrat in the primaries first. Only after the primaries does it matter which is the better candidate for gun owners.

Keep trashing Campbell and you get Meg. instead you should be building up the most progun Republican and the most progun democrat.

Y'know, every time I said that, I got trashed for it. Good luck, though I agree with the sentiment.

eaglemike
10-13-2009, 3:19 PM
Ummm, actually, it does. The Constitution is pretty explicit that Congress shall have the power to promulgate regulations for the militia. If you think otherwise, well, you're definitely smoking something.
Ummmmm, are you sure you know what "well regulated" meant when the document was written? Have you read the supporting correspondence?

SteveH
10-13-2009, 3:24 PM
Y'know, every time I said that, I got trashed for it. Good luck, though I agree with the sentiment.

The primaries are where real change is made. People are wrong to overlook that.

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 3:27 PM
Ummmmm, are you sure you know what "well regulated" meant when the document was written? Have you read the supporting correspondence?

Article 1, section 8:
" To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've got a good idea of what "well regulated" meant in context. Though note that Congress' governance ability only extends so far as "such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States".

Sheepdog1968
10-13-2009, 3:34 PM
So far I don't see anyone running who is what I would call pro gun. I'd like to see Jerry Brown put out a similar statement so we could compare the two leading contendors.

thisismyboomstick
10-13-2009, 3:43 PM
Ummmmm, are you sure you know what "well regulated" meant when the document was written? Have you read the supporting correspondence?

The improper understanding of the meaning of "regulate" as used the Constitution has caused an immense amount of damage to our freedoms. It is used 3 times.

Once in the commerce clause:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes;

Once pertaining to money:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

And the 2nd:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fedzilla has used the improper interpretation of the commerce clause to justify its attempts to control everything under the sun, all the way down to wheat that you grow on your own property for your own use that doesn't cross state lines.

It has used the improper interpretation of "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof" to devalue that which we use as money by upwards of 95% over the last 100 years.

I shouldn't have to explain to anybody here about how the wording of the 2nd is used to justify all manner of restrictions on our RKBA.

Anyone who has studied the attitudes of the founders, or a 18th century dictionary knows that the intended definition of the word "regulate" is much closer to "to make regular" than a meaning that would allow for restrictions through legislation.

dantodd
10-13-2009, 3:46 PM
You'll note in the part I snipped, he doesn't say whether he supports that position or not. Your attribution of it...is beneath you.


Not really. He used it to justify potential future infringements on the second amendment. Had he disagreed with the abridgments of the 4th contained in the Patriot Act he should not have held it as an example of acceptable infringement. There are many people who believe that a particular SCOTUS decision is wrongly decided and to state such is a sign of a backbone.

To try and hold up the Patriot Act as a model for future 2A regulation is to support the Patriot Act.

devildog999
10-13-2009, 3:50 PM
"Yes, I currently support the CA "Assault Weapon Ban"

Only read that and he already lost my vote. At least he helped me decide before I had to read the whole thing.

Read it anyways and found more reasons to not vote him.

dfletcher
10-13-2009, 3:51 PM
I understand Brown has the Democratic Party to keep happy through primary season and what that means regarding stating a position on gun control. I understand the value of what he has done quietly and what he has not done - I understand nuance.

But sooner or later he does have to come to the dance, so to speak. I'd like to think a Governor on who we must rely to keep his party in line on guns has the ability to maintain support for his position in a general election.

Excepting that one is a Democrat (and Democrats are overtly antigun but Brown is not) and one is a Republican (and Republicans are supposed to be overtly progun by Campbell is not) is there really a difference between their positions? Doesn't Brown benefit, because he does not confirm our fears and Campbell fail because he does not live up to our expectations?

I'm glad Campbell took the time to answer our questions. I just wonder how different they really are from what we generally consider the only supportive candidate in the race.

radioman
10-13-2009, 4:08 PM
He may not be gun friendly, but he did speak his mind, and did not say. let me sat this about that, or, on the other side of the coin. like so many would.

CaliforniaCarry
10-13-2009, 4:21 PM
I'm glad Campbell took the time to answer our questions. I just wonder how different they really are from what we generally consider the only supportive candidate in the race.
Brown:

Filed brief in support of incorporation. Said brief has caused the anti's pain.
Defense of roster case suspiciously "not up to par".
Lots of other pro-gun (or really, "anti anti-gun") stuff going on behind the scenes.

Campbell:

Thinks 2A restricts Feds more than states, regardless of 14A.
Supports AWB.
Supports Patriot Act (calling into question his support of 4A)
Supports banning "cop-killer" bullets.


Hm...

Honestly the only bad thing I see about brown becoming governor (from a 2A standpoint), is that we get a new (likely much worse) AG. I'd almost rather brown stayed AG and we found another electable pro-gun candidate for gov. Think of how effectively we could mitigate/stop bad things with a pro-gun gov and AG.

Synergy
10-13-2009, 4:31 PM
I was unaware of Campbell's stance till this post. For those in the LA south bay, the local Republican Club will be hosting a Governors Forum. I just received this e-mail:

Next Thursday is the regular monthly meeting of the Beach Cities Republican Club. It will be another great meeting as we are having Governors Forum. We will have Tom Campbell representing himself, Bob Hauter representing Meg Whitman, and Steve Frank representing Steve Poizner. Come and find out directly from each campaign where they stand on the issues. Following their presentations there will be a question and answer period.

Additionally we will hear from Adam Abrahms. Adam is a nationally recognized labor-law attorney (representing management, of course), Chairman of the Los Angeles County Chapter of the California Republican Lawyers Association, and the elected National Committeeman for the Young Republican Federation of California. He is also a candidate for Regional Vice-Chair of the California Republican Party.

You might even get an update or two from another candidate...

Any CGN'ers want to go and pose some more thought provoking questions?

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 4:37 PM
Taptap....

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3206725&postcount=58

Broaden your search to beyond the "e" suffix of "regulate". Thus, in article 1, section 8, we get:
"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"

The improper understanding of the meaning of "regulate" as used the Constitution has caused an immense amount of damage to our freedoms. It is used 3 times.

Once in the commerce clause:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes;

Once pertaining to money:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

And the 2nd:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

CSACANNONEER
10-13-2009, 4:38 PM
Tom Campbell on guns:

[B][I]"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.




While I strongly disagree with his views, I commend him for taking a clear position on the subject at hand. Now, the voters will be more informed.

Uriah02
10-13-2009, 4:40 PM
He's not the worst one out there...

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 4:44 PM
Not really. He used it to justify potential future infringements on the second amendment. Had he disagreed with the abridgments of the 4th contained in the Patriot Act he should not have held it as an example of acceptable infringement. There are many people who believe that a particular SCOTUS decision is wrongly decided and to state such is a sign of a backbone.

To try and hold up the Patriot Act as a model for future 2A regulation is to support the Patriot Act.


Actually, he didn't. Here's an oped he wroteabout the Patriot act, which might provide some substantive contribution, vs. the interesting attempts at spin.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/20/opinion/oe-campbell20

So... his public statement is that he disagrees with the view you wish you could attribute to him. And, note - that oped dates from 2004.

He's anti-gun, and that's damning enough around here. Stop trying to, well, _manufacture_ more.

B Strong
10-13-2009, 4:48 PM
If you had told me 30 years ago that Jerry Brown would be more friendly to the Second Amendment than any Republican, I would have thought you to be under the influence.

The longer you stay around, the more things happen that will blow your mind.

sargenv
10-13-2009, 5:22 PM
With all that's going on GOP wise and the two candidates we have for Repub gov, today I pretty much gave up on the Cal GOP when they called me for their usual fund raising effort. I told them in no uncertain terms that I do not want to receive any more phone calls after the Gov pretty much screwed us over AB 962. I asked to be removed from their call list and that I was no longer going to vote for any repub in this state until they took their head out of their heinie and that I was likely going to vote for JB for gov.

Ok.. that made me feel a bit better.. I think TC has run before and he has ALWAYS been anti gun.. and we likely know about the Ebay exec.. and all of the crap they pulled to effectively start other auction sites due to their stupidity over all things firearms related. The Repubs are worthless in this state.. and all but dead as a party also.. IMO.

And that's all I have to say about that..

IW378
10-13-2009, 5:52 PM
Who is a pro gun politician ? None that come to my mind. If there is such a thing as a pro 2a candidate that won't sell us out ............ Nevermind there is no such thing. Imagine lieing for a living and just when you thought it couldn't get any better you get offered some more money or a bribe perhaps:eek: and your stance changes overnight. When is the last time an elected official did something for us concerning gun rights in this backwards state ?

berto
10-13-2009, 5:54 PM
I understand Brown has the Democratic Party to keep happy through primary season and what that means regarding stating a position on gun control. I understand the value of what he has done quietly and what he has not done - I understand nuance.

But sooner or later he does have to come to the dance, so to speak. I'd like to think a Governor on who we must rely to keep his party in line on guns has the ability to maintain support for his position in a general election.

Excepting that one is a Democrat (and Democrats are overtly antigun but Brown is not) and one is a Republican (and Republicans are supposed to be overtly progun by Campbell is not) is there really a difference between their positions? Doesn't Brown benefit, because he does not confirm our fears and Campbell fail because he does not live up to our expectations?

I'm glad Campbell took the time to answer our questions. I just wonder how different they really are from what we generally consider the only supportive candidate in the race.

You raise a good point.

Campbell's record in the House spoke for itself. His answers reinforce his previous votes.

Brown's recent record is promising and certainly better than any of the viable candidates. He's also the most likely to win. I have reservations about JB. I doubt he's the perfect 2A candidate but he appears to be the best we've got. It's frustrating that he can't or won't lay it out like Campbell.

dfletcher
10-13-2009, 6:00 PM
Brown:

Filed brief in support of incorporation. Said brief has caused the anti's pain.
Defense of roster case suspiciously "not up to par".
Lots of other pro-gun (or really, "anti anti-gun") stuff going on behind the scenes.

Campbell:

Thinks 2A restricts Feds more than states, regardless of 14A.
Supports AWB.
Supports Patriot Act (calling into question his support of 4A)
Supports banning "cop-killer" bullets.


Hm...

Honestly the only bad thing I see about brown becoming governor (from a 2A standpoint), is that we get a new (likely much worse) AG. I'd almost rather brown stayed AG and we found another electable pro-gun candidate for gov. Think of how effectively we could mitigate/stop bad things with a pro-gun gov and AG.

I sense (and it is just that, a sense) that Brown's basic position is "why the heck are we putting the screws to them (meaning lawful gun owners) - they're not the problem". I appreciate that he can no more come out now & say he's progun anymore than a Republican could, before a primary, come out in favor of high taxes or open borders.

But we don't know if Brown supports the AW ban. We don't know if he supports the roster. We don't know his position on "shall issue" or the hi cap ban. His positions could be quite the same as Campbell's. They seem more positive because he's a Democrat and Campbell negative because he's a Republican - I think that's a factor in our perception. And that's a good thing - hell, a fairly progun Democrat in this state! Not too bad.

Regarding the 14th, his amicus brief supports the right to own a handgun in the home for self defense. I presume he states the case narrowly because that's the essence of Heller. But he writes the brief seeking clarification as to what laws a state may pass - he doesn't indicate a desire for the state to have laws that are more or less restrictive than the federal government, he is requesting guidance from the court, wherever that may lead.

But it may be that "they're not the problem" is as good as we get with Brown. That, and what I'd call the "LBJ Effect". Johnson dealt well with the southern Senators on civil rights where Kennedy could not, in good part because Johnson was one of them. Give equal positions on guns, maybe we're better off with a Democratic Governor who can deal with the legislators because he's "one of them".

Jerkdog
10-13-2009, 6:01 PM
"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.

I love how these informed anti-gun people think it's just a quick little change and "whammo, we gots a fully automatic assault rifle". How many gangbangers do you think possess the machining equip and know how in order to modify a semi-auto into fully automatic? I'm guessing the number is somewhere between 0% and none.

BigDogatPlay
10-13-2009, 6:10 PM
"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."

Oh yeah, favored by policemen and women. When no statewide CLEO organization stood up in support, nor did any rank and file org. A few chiefs weighed in favor and that was it.

The bill was not supported by law enforcement so Mr. Campbell is either badly informed or he's flatass lying.

So do I want to vote for someone who thinks my rights can and should be infringed, and is either ignorant of fact or blatantly fibbing to bolster his position?

No thanks.

Sunwolf
10-13-2009, 6:23 PM
Campbell is not going to get my vote or the votes of my clan."Cop killer" bullets,good grief!

foxtrotuniformlima
10-13-2009, 6:28 PM
OK then. A Republican that will not get the NRA support. That's got to be a small club.

joe4702
10-13-2009, 6:30 PM
From his website:

"Long before the recent US Supreme Court ruling, I took the position that the 2nd Amendment created a personal right to keep and bear arms, not simply a right for the states to have militias."

This guy is a tool. I can't stand politicians who wax philosophic about the 2nd Amendment and then never met a gun control law they didn't like. He supports every major gun control law we're saddled with in CA. Oh wait...he's against the .50 ban (but only due to his erroneous belief that there are no semi-auto .50's) and he's against the Cow Palace ban (because it's better to let localities ban gun shows on their own if they want to). Oh yeah, this guy is a fantastic supporter of my "personal right to keep and bear arms". :rolleyes:

steve weikel
10-13-2009, 6:48 PM
Who was our choice over Arnie(and I'm not supporting his causes) Grey Davis(aka reason I bought my first AR-15 in 1999) or Cruz Busamonte (lefist hack)
Did you even have a choice? Same with Bush or Gore, Bush or Kerry. The less of two evils is still evil. Just less, duh. I forget the name of the guy who ran
against Arnie last election, would he have been better.

If you think Cali is in bad shape now, put a dem gov. in there. He'll go along
with any half brain law that is passed, and he won't have to argue with either
of the legislative factions. Sure maybe you'll be able to do something you can't do now( no chance in hell) but you won't be able to afford it when they jack your taxes^^^^^^ charge excessive fee's to pay for their bull(*& plans.

Now we'll see what a federal gov. with 0 checks and balances does to us and our health care, energy needs, freedom of speech, and wallets. From what it sounds like Cali will have that next year. I'm not saying Cambell has all the right answers, just like Mc Cain didn't have all the right answers, but he had to of had twice as many than the Big O'.

In the end the Governor doesn't make any laws, he signs them into law, and if
there is something big enough in it for him, it's likey anyone would sign any bill
about anything. Change the people making the laws and they won't be put in the position to sign them into law. Let's just hope Dianne Pukestein doesn't
run, I'd hate to see all you guys change your story.:D

Racefiend
10-13-2009, 6:59 PM
I really like this guy's answer. I don't agree with it, but I like it. He actually answered the questions thoroughly.A bit of a rarity in politics. Nevertheless, he's not getting my vote.

nk-1911
10-13-2009, 8:33 PM
I'm not voting for this guy. There is no difference between him and Arnold. I think he is a front runner for the RNC. We are so screwed!

7x57
10-13-2009, 8:40 PM
Keep trashing Campbell and you get Meg. instead you should be building up the most progun Republican and the most progun democrat.

Unfortunately, it's sort of a difficult question to figure out who the least anti-gun Republican would be, and for that matter if the difference is statistically meaningful.

7x57

7x57
10-13-2009, 8:43 PM
This is the sort of balance that the US Supreme Court has made for years regarding other parts of the Bill of Rights. For instance, the 4th Amendment requires that a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched." Yet in the PATRIOT Act, the US is allowed to seek a "roving" wiretap, applicable to whatever cell phone or land line a suspected foreign terrorist might want to use." [/I]

Sounds like he doesn't respect the 4th Amendment either...


Aw, c'mon. He even used the magic "balance" word. Doesn't that make everything OK? :rolleyes:

7x57

bigstick61
10-13-2009, 9:22 PM
Who was our choice over Arnie(and I'm not supporting his causes) Grey Davis(aka reason I bought my first AR-15 in 1999) or Cruz Busamonte (lefist hack)
Did you even have a choice? Same with Bush or Gore, Bush or Kerry. The less of two evils is still evil. Just less, duh. I forget the name of the guy who ran
against Arnie last election, would he have been better.

If you think Cali is in bad shape now, put a dem gov. in there. He'll go along
with any half brain law that is passed, and he won't have to argue with either
of the legislative factions. Sure maybe you'll be able to do something you can't do now( no chance in hell) but you won't be able to afford it when they jack your taxes^^^^^^ charge excessive fee's to pay for their bull(*& plans.

Now we'll see what a federal gov. with 0 checks and balances does to us and our health care, energy needs, freedom of speech, and wallets. From what it sounds like Cali will have that next year. I'm not saying Cambell has all the right answers, just like Mc Cain didn't have all the right answers, but he had to of had twice as many than the Big O'.

In the end the Governor doesn't make any laws, he signs them into law, and if
there is something big enough in it for him, it's likey anyone would sign any bill
about anything. Change the people making the laws and they won't be put in the position to sign them into law. Let's just hope Dianne Pukestein doesn't
run, I'd hate to see all you guys change your story.:D

Tom McClintock was the alternative to Arnold. He probably would have won had Arnold not joined the race; even then I think he still made second or third place. He was and is very pro-gun and is also very much a conservative, one of the few such politicians in the GOP. I really wish Arnold had not entered that race. One thing I found funny was that in the Democratic attack ads against McClintock, every accusation they made against him was one more reason why I liked him as a politician; his support for gun rights was one of those issues. McClintock, IMO, would have been far better than Arnold and I think he would have been a good leader for the GOP at a time when it clearly needs good leadership. Unfortunately, California has lost him since our term limits, as theynaturally must do, throw out the good with the bad.

deldgeetar
10-13-2009, 9:30 PM
Tom McClintock was the alternative to Arnold. He probably would have won had Arnold not joined the race; even then I think he still made second or third place. He was and is very pro-gun and is also very much a conservative, one of the few such politicians in the GOP. I really wish Arnold had not entered that race. One thing I found funny was that in the Democratic attack ads against McClintock, every accusation they made against him was one more reason why I liked him as a politician; his support for gun rights was one of those issues. McClintock, IMO, would have been far better than Arnold and I think he would have been a good leader for the GOP at a time when it clearly needs good leadership. Unfortunately, California has lost him since our term limits, as theynaturally must do, throw out the good with the bad.

He isn't lost! He's in the US House of Reps now! As much as we need him here, I think nationally he can help make more of a difference. He still knows the CA budget better than anyone I've ever heard talk about it. I think one day he may be governor of this state, once it has gone bankrupt and the idiots living here begin to understand what real financial pain is.

bigstick61
10-13-2009, 9:39 PM
For now he is lost to the State. In D.C. he is one of a handful of conservatives in a sea of neoconservatives, who are in turn outnumbered by people further to the left. While it's nice to have a real conservative in Congress, I'm not sure how much good he can actually do there. Ron Paul certainly does not get much accomplished in terms of legislation, not that I've seen anyways. I do think he may come back to our politics, though, and perhaps even successfully.

chuckles48
10-13-2009, 9:53 PM
Regarding the 14th, his amicus brief supports the right to own a handgun in the home for self defense. I presume he states the case narrowly because that's the essence of Heller. But he writes the brief seeking clarification as to what laws a state may pass - he doesn't indicate a desire for the state to have laws that are more or less restrictive than the federal government, he is requesting guidance from the court, wherever that may lead.

You, like many others, seem to have fallen for the "reading more into what's there than what's there" fallacy. JB's amicus on incorporation supports incorporation. It does _NOT_ extend that to a right to own a handgun in the home for self defense. It DOES explicitly state that the CA "safe handgun" roster is reasonable regulation.

JB supports incorporation. No more, no less. At this point, I'm starting to think he falls into the "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy" state. He's not a demonstrable ally, despite the mutterings of certain other Calgunners.

elSquid
10-13-2009, 10:27 PM
You, like many others, seem to have fallen for the "reading more into what's there than what's there" fallacy. JB's amicus on incorporation supports incorporation.

That's kind of a big thing, no? Once we get that, it's go time.

It does _NOT_ extend that to a right to own a handgun in the home for self defense.


"In granting the petitions and ruling upon the merits, the Court should extend to the states Heller’s core Second-Amendment holding that the government cannot deny citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes."

It DOES explicitly state that the CA "safe handgun" roster is reasonable regulation.

It also makes mention of Peña. Strange, why would he bring that up? :confused:

-- Michael

dfletcher
10-13-2009, 10:35 PM
You, like many others, seem to have fallen for the "reading more into what's there than what's there" fallacy. JB's amicus on incorporation supports incorporation. It does _NOT_ extend that to a right to own a handgun in the home for self defense. It DOES explicitly state that the CA "safe handgun" roster is reasonable regulation.

JB supports incorporation. No more, no less. At this point, I'm starting to think he falls into the "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy" state. He's not a demonstrable ally, despite the mutterings of certain other Calgunners.

I just reread part of his brief - you're correct, it doesn't specifically state he supports the right to own a handgun in the home for self defense, it states he agrees an individual has a right to own a handgun in their home and supports Heller, in part:

"Unless the protections of the Second Amendment extend to citizens living in the States as well as to those living in federal enclaves, California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

This Court recently held that the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from denying citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). But the decision did not resolve the more important question of whether this limitation applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitions in these cases should be granted so the Court may address this question. In granting the petitions and ruling upon the merits, the Court should extend to the states Heller’s core Second-Amendment holding that the government cannot deny citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes, but also provide guidance on the scope of the States’ ability to reasonably regulate firearms."

I will take the leap that self defense is supported in Heller and since he cites Heller I think there is support - but it's late and I'm too lazy to check. I've never offered that he doesn't support the roster - or the AW ban or the hi cap ban, or any other state laws - that remains to be seen. But NOT writing a brief in support of DC's position (which he could have done) or doing nothing regarding the 14th but instead supporting Heller is a positive step.

mattmcg
10-13-2009, 10:51 PM
Well, I have to say that I'm disappointed in his response to dfletcher. As someone that asked BillW to remove the "antigunner" term from his thread title earlier in reference to Tom Campbell, his responses certainly justify the use of the term.

I've also been emailing back and forth with him and expressing some of the issues California gun owners face when dealing with incorporation, AW ban, and AB962. Frankly, he still doesn't get it unfortunately. He's a sharp guy and strong on many important issues that relate to our state (economics for one) but he would need to adjust his views to earn my vote if these are the "sensible" gun regulations that he deems necessary.

In all fairness, I'd like to see the same questionaire responded to by Jerry Brown as well. While I have heard some of his recent comments and read his Heller letter which I found encouraging, I suspect we have certain issues like the approved list and large capacity mag issues that will scorn CA gun owners as well (I hope not).

Thanks all for posting this. I stand partially corrected.

hoffmang
10-13-2009, 11:28 PM
In all fairness, I'd like to see the same questionaire responded to by Jerry Brown as well.

Let's send our double agent a questionnaire to get him on the record for which side he supports...

Yet we should have deference for Tom "I think banning most of them are ok" Campbell. Really?

-Gene

mattmcg
10-13-2009, 11:38 PM
Gene, not sure I'm following you. Double agent? Please enlighten us.....

Also, I ask for no deference to any candidate. I only look for facts upon which to make a decision. Tom has all the makings of a good governor in my opinion minus his 2A views which unfortunately disqualify him from receiving my vote as 2A issues are very high on my priority list.

bigstick61
10-13-2009, 11:45 PM
Jerry Brown also has alot of views which I cannot stand and would not vote for barring a special consideration, so for me to vote for him in the general should he make it there would require something solid from him on gun rights and at least evidence he has toned it down on other issues, like his anti-corporation and environmentalist stances I have read about. Unfortunately the situation in California is such that it is most unwise to be a single-issue voter; if we get screwed in every area but gun rights, we're still screwed.

Gray Peterson
10-13-2009, 11:54 PM
Jerry Brown also has alot of views which I cannot stand and would not vote for barring a special consideration, so for me to vote for him in the general should he make it there would require something solid from him on gun rights and at least evidence he has toned it down on other issues, like his anti-corporation and environmentalist stances I have read about. Unfortunately the situation in California is such that it is most unwise to be a single-issue voter; if we get screwed in every area but gun rights, we're still screwed.

It's even more unwise to be a straight party line voter in California.

bigstick61
10-14-2009, 12:05 AM
It's even more unwise to be a straight party line voter in California.

Which I am not. I don't give a damn anymore what letter is next to their name, I care what they stand for and what they will do. Unfortunately, I am not seeing much in Brown worth voting for. I am not exactly fond of the Republican candidates so far either.

Gray Peterson
10-14-2009, 12:05 AM
Gene, not sure I'm following you. Double agent? Please enlighten us.....


Gene has had more experience dealing with the Attorney General's office, and understanding of the nuances and the defense they throw up, especially in regards to Pena v. Cid. Demoted the division of Firearms to just a bureau, and pulled the agency out of the politicking in the Legislature that Bill Lockyer and Dan Lungren did for 16 years beforehand.

bwiese
10-14-2009, 12:33 AM
You, like many others, seem to have fallen for the "reading more into what's there than what's there" fallacy. JB's amicus on incorporation supports incorporation. It does _NOT_ extend that to a right to own a handgun in the home for self defense. It DOES explicitly state that the CA "safe handgun" roster is reasonable regulation.

And his putting the B team on the Roster case?

His position on incorporation is good enough. He can say anything else he wants to on anything, including support of CA AWB etc. That one thing will get us Heller into CA. That one act made him more valuable than most Republican legislative pro-gun votes.

I don't care about his opinion of base support items when he hands us a keystone instead.

You'll notice how disturbed the LCAV counsel for Alameda (Sayre Weaver) was when this was brought up - she really lost it.

JB supports incorporation. No more, no less.

That's fine, we'll take it. We really don't want more - that's greedy.
He can say whatever else he wanted as 'cover' in the amicus - the bottom line will be read out.

Incorporation gets us the keys to the kingdom.
With incorporation, our AWB is killed next step.
With incorporation, our Roster is killed (Gura killed it in DC already).
With incorporation, 10 day wait period for your Nth gun goes bye-bye.

With incorporation we'll have at least higher than intermediate scrutiny.
Incorporation brings Heller into CA, and bans attacks on weapons not 'dangerous and unusual'. Yes, Scalia said 'reasonable regulation' is allowed - banning anything both 'dangerous AND unusual', and banning felons in possession, etc. "Common use" guns are gonna be allowed. Capricious bans based on arbitrary caliber (why is 50BMG banned but not 510DTC?).

He's not a demonstrable ally, despite the mutterings of certain other Calgunners.

You're referring to Gene, myself and several others.
Some of us folks (I missed it) actually were at a table with the man. He spent a helluva lot longer with CG folks than he did with the LCAV/Brady folks glaring across the room.

JB tried to help us kill 962. Yup, actively.
DOJ FD downsized to bureau.
Sierra Sports case magically had no DOJ testimony.
Iggy Chinn and Randy Rossi gone.
Black rifles at every gunshop/gunshow without DOJ hassle...
w/250K-300K black rifles of various flavors in CA now.
Amicus brief.
25+ year history of pro-gun utterances, acknowledgment of RBK

KylaGWolf
10-14-2009, 7:07 AM
And his putting the B team on the Roster case?

His position on incorporation is good enough. He can say anything else he wants to on anything, including support of CA AWB etc. That one thing will get us Heller into CA. That one act made him more valuable than most Republican legislative pro-gun votes.

I don't care about his opinion of base support items when he hands us a keystone instead.

You'll notice how disturbed the LCAV counsel for Alameda (Sayre Weaver) was when this was brought up - she really lost it.



That's fine, we'll take it. We really don't want more - that's greedy.
He can say whatever else he wanted as 'cover' in the amicus - the bottom line will be read out.

Incorporation gets us the keys to the kingdom.
With incorporation, our AWB is killed next step.
With incorporation, our Roster is killed (Gura killed it in DC already).
With incorporation, 10 day wait period for your Nth gun goes bye-bye.

With incorporation we'll have at least higher than intermediate scrutiny.
Incorporation brings Heller into CA, and bans attacks on weapons not 'dangerous and unusual'. Yes, Scalia said 'reasonable regulation' is allowed - banning anything both 'dangerous AND unusual', and banning felons in possession, etc. "Common use" guns are gonna be allowed. Capricious bans based on arbitrary caliber (why is 50BMG banned but not 510DTC?).



You're referring to Gene, myself and several others.
Some of us folks (I missed it) actually were at a table with the man. He spent a helluva lot longer with CG folks than he did with the LCAV/Brady folks glaring across the room.

JB tried to help us kill 962. Yup, actively.
DOJ FD downsized to bureau.
Sierra Sports case magically had no DOJ testimony.
Iggy Chinn and Randy Rossi gone.
Black rifles at every gunshop/gunshow without DOJ hassle...
w/250K-300K black rifles of various flavors in CA now.
Amicus brief.
25+ year history of pro-gun utterances, acknowledgment of RBK

What he said :)

wash
10-14-2009, 7:09 AM
I don't get it.

I would love to see a pro-RKBA republican candidate for governor who had a chance of winning. What we've got is republicans who aren't pro-RKBA and have no chance of winning but still people can't figure out that Jerry Brown will be worlds better than Gavin Newsome.

Your vote doesn't count unless you vote for a winner. This election won't even be close.

Aegis
10-14-2009, 7:44 AM
He does not even have a chance to win.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 8:15 AM
That's kind of a big thing, no? Once we get that, it's go time.

Yes it is. Of course, it's also "go time" for the state, if there's no limit of reasonable regulations. Which, presently, there isn't.




"In granting the petitions and ruling upon the merits, the Court should extend to the states Heller’s core Second-Amendment holding that the government cannot deny citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes."
Yep. Notice how that whole "self defense" thing got excised?

It also makes mention of Peña. Strange, why would he bring that up? :confused:

-- Michael

He has to make the cite, given that this is a USSC brief. Once the case is filed, it's a matter of record.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 8:19 AM
I just reread part of his brief - you're correct, it doesn't specifically state he supports the right to own a handgun in the home for self defense, it states he agrees an individual has a right to own a handgun in their home and supports Heller, in part:
...
I will take the leap that self defense is supported in Heller and since he cites Heller I think there is support - but it's late and I'm too lazy to check. I've never offered that he doesn't support the roster - or the AW ban or the hi cap ban, or any other state laws - that remains to be seen. But NOT writing a brief in support of DC's position (which he could have done) or doing nothing regarding the 14th but instead supporting Heller is a positive step.

Yeah, it's a small step from "in the home" to "in the home for self-defense". But my point was that while he supports incorporation, he didn't take that small step.

And yes, support for incorporation is a good thing. Don't get me wrong. I'm simply saying that people have a habit around here of reading more into the tea leaves than what's necessarily there.

oldrifle
10-14-2009, 8:28 AM
I was thinking about TC this morning and remembered that when he ran for US Congress in my district in '89, he did so on a pretty moderate GOP platform. He ran on small government, less taxes, etc. and some socially liberal policies regarding gun control, abortion and gay rights.

Do you guys honestly believe that any Republican would have ANY chance whatsoever of becoming Governor of CA if they weren't socially liberal (pro gun control, pro gay marriage, etc.)? I don't think so. Tom knows this and perhaps the views he holds *publicly* regarding gun control are different from his personal beliefs? I mean, the guy wants to actually get elected, right?

But then again, he said he'd sign AB962, which sort of flies in the face of that theory since it's such an Orwellian and overreaching law. :rolleyes:

elSquid
10-14-2009, 10:11 AM
Yes it is. Of course, it's also "go time" for the state, if there's no limit of reasonable regulations. Which, presently, there isn't.

And look at the lovely set of firearms laws we have currently in CA!

Yep. Notice how that whole "self defense" thing got excised?

Ok, time for an eye roll icon: :rolleyes:

From Heller:

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

He has to make the cite, given that this is a USSC brief. Once the case is filed, it's a matter of record.

AG Brown could have left the roster out completely. Or could have not even written the amicus. After all, CA was one of the few states to not weigh in on Heller.

And yet, the amicus was written for McDonald, guidance was asked for, the roster and Peña were mentioned. Do you think that Peña highlights the absurdities of the roster? What level of constitutional scrutiny would the roster survive?

-- Michael

Tom Campbell
10-14-2009, 10:16 AM
Dear dfletcher,

I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

Fjold
10-14-2009, 10:26 AM
Dear dfletcher,

I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

Thank you for joining and contributing to the Calguns forum but I find your above response vague.

You state that you defend the Constitution and believe the Second Amendment is a personal right but come out in favor of a so-called Assault Weapons ban and Approved handgun Roster.

Would you approve an Internet ban and approved list of computers to limit first amendment rights?


I've been a registered Republican since I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I've never voted for a Democrat for Governor but right now I cannot see myself voting for a Republican in the upcoming race.

Mitch
10-14-2009, 10:26 AM
In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Do we have any expectation that your views could be substantially changed following a discussion here?

I read your e-mail response, and yes, I will commend you for being specific and honest. So far we haven't seen any of that from Meg Whitman. But what struck me, especially now in the wake of your claim about your reverence for the Constitution, is your notion that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable a Militia of armed citizenry ". . . 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."

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with any of that and I suspect you know it.

Anyway, I, personally, really dislike harping on the Second Amendment, party because it doesn't even apply in California (yet) and partly because the arguments against gun control are good enough that the Second Amendment needn't be invoked. Laws like the assault weapon ban, the new ammunition registration law, the handgun roster and many others are simply bad legislation, completely ineffective for their intended (well, stated) purpose. That's why they should be opposed.

You will have to defend your support of such legislation. I find it hard to believe you are not already well acquainted with the arguments against them.

So go for it!

wash
10-14-2009, 10:30 AM
If you want us to get a tax stamp for a machine gun, that's OK.

That's still infringing our rights but it's something we can live with to keep them away from crooks.

Anything else restricting our ability to own whatever gun we want is wrong.

Scrap the AWB because it didn't reduce crime one bit.

Scrap AB962 because gang bangers will just get their baby-momma to buy ammo for them.

Scrap the 10 day wait and 1 every 30 days restriction because NICS is good enough and people only have two hands. But investigate and go after straw purchasers.

Silencers are most effective as hearing protection for loud rifles, they should be legal.

Get someone with half a brain to figure out that a "grenade launcher" isn't a muzzle device designed to launch RPG's which no one can get any way.

Give us CCW reciprocity with a few states (but make sure those states actually issue CCW's).

Mitch
10-14-2009, 10:44 AM
By the way, this is a great site where you can see, first hand, just how ridiculous, ineffective and oppressive the assault weapon ban is. Most of the membership has successfully and legally circumvented [bad choice of words, it has already been mentioned] the law and now possess many thousands of AR-15s, AK-47s and other "banned" rifles. This has occurred in the last three or four years and if these were really dangerous weapons we should have seen a dramatic uptick in violent crime, shootouts, street battles and other horrors performed with these rifles.

And yet we haven't. How can that be explained by a defender of the assault weapon ban?

The handgun "safety" roster makes no sense at all, particularly since "professional" handgun users (cops) are exempt, and especially in a state that does not even have automotive safety inspections.

gewgaw
10-14-2009, 10:56 AM
Most of the membership has successfully and legally circumvented the law and now possess many thousands of AR-15s, AK-47s and other "banned" rifles.

I have to correct you -- no one has CIRCUMVENTED the law, we all follow the law to the letter. We also do not own any BANNED firearms -- all our firearms are legal and allowed to be possessed under the current laws.

But I understand your point.

Mitch
10-14-2009, 11:00 AM
I have to correct you -- no one has CIRCUMVENTED the law, we all follow the law to the letter. We also do not own any BANNED firearms -- all our firearms are legal and allowed to be possessed under the current laws.

But I understand your point.

Yeah, yeah, bad choice of words, but I know that using the more accurate term "loophole" sends Calgunners into a frenzy.

We have successfully circumvented the intention of the law. That's what I call a loophole.

And the Four Horsemen have yet to appear.

wash
10-14-2009, 11:00 AM
Yes, we have legal rifles that are mostly functionally identical to the rifles banned in the AWB and legally available in most of the country.

This type of gun hasn't caused increased violence in the rest of the country, even with the "evil" features that Californians are not allowed to have.

gewgaw
10-14-2009, 11:05 AM
This type of gun hasn't caused increased violence in the rest of the country, even with the "evil" features that Californians are not allowed to have.

And I would add that a lot of the reason why pistol grips, folding stocks, etc. etc. were specifically listed in the law were for cosmetic reasons -- firearms that "look" evil and bad are forbidden and called "assault weapons" (a completely invented term that means nothing), because they are similar in appearance to fully automatic assault rifles (an actual term that means something).

That is no way to write a law, especially one that modifies our 2nd Amendment liberties.

bwiese
10-14-2009, 11:07 AM
Hello, Tom,

I thank you for the honesty of your reply and your presence here.

You have, however, clarified why I and many hundreds of thousands of other California gunnies cannot vote for you - or, in fact, any other Republican candidate for Governor. (To your slight credit, your other Republican compatriots for Governor's office are equally weak, if not having the detailed history of antigun statements that you've made over the past decade.)

And given the thin support for Republicans in CA - there's an extra mountain to climb for any Republican statewide candidate - we in the past figured gunrights might be a 'hook' to bring gunnies in en masse. Guess we're not valuable to you or the party - so the party that's alienated a lot of fundamentally middle-road/swing voters has added yet another group it's kicked in the teeth.

You also display a terrible understanding of (or, perhaps, recast them in disingenuous terms to make your positions supposedly palatable to some) both California's gun laws and the Heller decision. Your positions indicate you either spoke/wrote without analysis - which is not a hearty recommendation for a supposedly 'brainy' and 'professorial' candidate - or you just don't give a damn about technicalities and freedom, and the fact that these laws have zero effect on crime or safety.

Bottom line, Heller allows firearms that are not "dangerous and unusual" - and the 'and' is highly important and was not casually used. Militia concerns and the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment are not really relevant. You are correct Heller indeed does allow "reasonable restrictions" - including bans on firearms that *are* 'dangerous and unusual', felons in possession, avoiding mentally unstable having guns, etc. But once the 2nd amendment is 'incorporated' (as are many other Bill of Rights amendments) in a relatively short time frame, Heller concepts will no longer be applicable just to DC only, and will rain down into California.

Your commentary on use of the term "well-regulated" in regards to the (somewhat irrelevant) militia status also does not hold water: that terminology, in the parlance of the day, has been repeatedly documented to generally encompass the concepts of "well-provisioned, well-stocked, well-equipped" - as opposed to concepts of discipline, restriction or limitation.

California's assault weapons law bans trivial features on otherwise legal semauto firearms. The idea that a rifle that's legal with one style of stock/grip is illegal with another variant attached is laughable. 'Assault weapons' terminology also does NOT refer to fully automatic weapons. Your claim that CA's AW ban, if cancelled, would allow machineguns is laughable even with the proverbial "trailerpark redneck's" understanding of gun law. Machineguns (fully automatic) have effectively been banned via wholly separate California law (12200PC; assault weapons are in 12275PC et seq) in conjunction with various aspects of Federal law (Nat'l Firearms Act of 1934). So the 'machingun' termiology you threw in was diversionary, inflamatory and irrelevant.

California's AW ban bans guns that are common and ordinary (the semiauto AR15 is one of the hottest-selling rifles in US, as common as Ruger 10/22s and Remington 700 bolt-action rifles) - these cannot be banned due to Heller (after incorporation of the 2nd Amendment).

Bottom line, we're just tired of 53-year old plumbers in Manteca going to jail for having the wrong style grip or muzzle device on their rifle, or for people being arrested for having perfectly legal rifles due to confusion by law enforcement over the law. We're tired of outlaw regulatory agencies kicking people's doors down for unclear trivialities in regulatory law.

Your support of California's approved handgun Roster is laughable too. The origin of the law was to ban as many handguns as possible and use 'safety' criteria as a cover mantra. In fact, the originators of the law were stunned when low-cost handguns they first wanted to ban actually passed their tests with flying colors (because the law was formulated on political assumptions, not technical facts). With the Roster, we now end up with ridiculous situations where a handgun in one finish has been approved - but if you want it in another finish or barrel length, it's not. Minor details change Roster status - sometimes an ergonomically useful gun variant has not been Rostered. One plaintiff in current Pena v. Cid "Roster" litigation is a one-armed man who wants a left-hand configured Glock pistol for home defense - you want to deprive him of that? Another plaintiff wants to buy the exact revolver make/model that Dick Heller was allowed to acquire and retain, courtesy of the Supreme Court. You want to interfere with that?

One advantage to replies and stances such as yours is that it has helped remove the supposed 'lock' the California Republican party has had on gun rights matters. Gunnies now examine candidates in detail, and we gunnies are increasingly becoming "single-issue" voters. For a decade or two, we've been assumed to be default supporters based on friendly words, handwaving, and legislative 'No' votes on bad gun bills, and the occasional veto by a wishywashy governor. With the party slipping into legislative irrelevancy and many CA R's not willing to carry [there are notable fine exceptions - Doug LaMalfa and Curt Hagman have been true RKBA stalwarts] gun bills, we're tired of being taken for granted.

It's gotten so bad that, if the California Republican party were considered as an animal, it's genetically evolved into a breed where its gunrights appendage has atrophied into a useless stub - perhaps the best exemplar animal for this situation would be the eyes of the blind mole rats found in caves.

If you'd care for a bit of "re-education" with experts, I belive a conversation with Alan Gura (of the Heller decision) can be arranged.


-Bill Wiese

gd-bh
10-14-2009, 11:08 AM
Mr. Campbell. Thank you for taking the very dangerous step of joining an open forum to discuss your views on 2nd Amendment rights in California. This is a big risk for any candidate, but especially so considering the issue.

Sir, if after this discussion, you stand firm in your position regarding AWB, so called "high capacity magazines", AB962, and any other law, rule, regulation, or belief that limits the freedom of law abiding, legal, United States Citizens to freely own, enjoy, and carry firearms without governmental intervention, then please understand you will not carry the vote from me, my wife, my three voting children and their spouses, as well as any other rational, freedom loving, voting citizens that I can pass on your anti-freedom views to. I suspect that will the the view of the vast majority of members on this, and many other 2nd Amendment forums that will view this discussion. Sir, I believe this is a significant number of voters, so I hope you will listen to the views here, and make the appropriate decision.

Others here will make much more eloquent arguments as to why your publicly stated viewpoints are Anti-2nd Amendment, and therefore (to me anyway) Anti-American. But I wish to have you consider a broader point when considering any sort of new "law" regarding gun control. Laws alone do nothing to stop criminal activity. The very nature of a criminal is to break the laws. Thus, it's already illegal to commit murder. It's already illegal for a felon to own a firearm. It's illegal for a felon to own ammunition. But the fact is they still do all of that. New "laws" only punish and encumber law abiding citizens.

If anyone truly wishes to curb "gun crime", they should champion aggressive, swift, and severe punishment as a consequence of breaking those laws already on the books. They should also encourage empowering those law abiding citizens to enjoy their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and have the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones from the sub-humans who would prey on them with the very tools that they are forbidden to possess in the first place. Even the odds so the law abiding citizen has a chance to fight back the violent criminals, and the violent criminals will soon realize there is a very good chance the pain and suffering they wish upon their victims might very well be thrust upon them instead. An intelligent leader would see that these two strategies would reduce crime faster than a thousand "feel good, but worthless" gun control laws all the most well meaning of people might enact.

I hope that after you interact with the well spoken, fine American citizens in this forum that you will see not only how your views should be re-considered, but how the real issue could be simply engaged.

GuyW
10-14-2009, 11:12 AM
And the funny thing is some posters will follow this up, "But Jerry Brown wanted 50BMG banned..." and not realizing that whatever he says on these matters was during an election battle with a question stupidly pushed by the other side - and irrelevant because of his amicus brief and other actions plus a 20 year favorable-comments-on-2A. Tom Campbell doesn't (and won't) have that undercurrent.

Yeah - its OK when they slap us around, because they're actually on our side.....

...and after all - being elected is the most important principle (well, really the only principle...)

This applies equally to Tom Campbell, who is yet another of the parade of CA RINOs inflicted on the Republican base by the Party...

.

bwiese
10-14-2009, 11:21 AM
Do you guys honestly believe that any Republican would have ANY chance whatsoever of becoming Governor of CA if they weren't socially liberal (pro gun control, pro gay marriage, etc.)? I don't think so.

He'd be much more electable being pro-gun, pro-gay, pro-choice than anti-gun, anti-gay, anti-choice.

Dan Lungren proved exactly that.

Gun concerns in CA have always been way 'down list' of general voter concerns and generally as a subaspect of 'crime' - other issues rise much higher (choice, LGBT rights, schools, budget, roads). Generally, and averaged over time, gun concerns range #7 - #9 on key issue list (they may bubble up for a day or two after some gang shooting) while choice remains #1 - #2 on "key issues" lists.

My (somewhat extreme but illustrative) statement that an ugly candidate waving a machinegun and a bag of dead fetuses is much more electable than a stylish gun-control anti-choice candidate still holds.

bwiese
10-14-2009, 11:22 AM
Yeah - its OK when they slap us around, because they're actually on our side.....

...and after all - being elected is the most important principle (well, really the only principle...)

He is on our side.
Results count.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 11:22 AM
Ok, time for an eye roll icon: :rolleyes:

Right back atcha. He could just as easily have included the extra _clause_ and stated self-defense. He deliberately chose not to do so. Rather than just saying "Oh, it's all right, it's Jerry", why don't you question _his_ motives as closely as you'd question those of Tom Campbell or Meg Whitman.

Jeezus, guys. You give him a pass based on very little _public, factual evidence_. All I'm saying is, subject him to the same scrutiny you would any other candidate. Scrutiny that's been (so far) singularly lacking.

AG Brown could have left the roster out completely. Or could have not even written the amicus. After all, CA was one of the few states to not weigh in on Heller.

And yet, the amicus was written for McDonald, guidance was asked for, the roster and Peña were mentioned. Do you think that Peña highlights the absurdities of the roster? What level of constitutional scrutiny would the roster survive?

Take that logic one step further. He could have mentioned the DC case, which formerly used the CA roster, and dropped it like a hot potato once challenged in Federal court. Did he? No.

Figure it out. He's trying to defend the roster before the USSC as a reasonable regulation under incorporation.

YES, he supports incorporation. But, from the bleacher seats, it appears that's a pretty limited version of incorporation. Not the expansive version many people here want.

wash
10-14-2009, 11:26 AM
Politics is a numbers game. Jerry Brown knows that, Tom Campbell knows that.

In California it doesn't pay to be the "evil guns" candidate.

When asked about .50BMG, I'm sure he thought about the actual number of voters that would be effected and it's a tiny number. He made a sacrifice.

In supporting the AWB, and AB962, Tom's opinion effects a lot more voters.

Sorry Tom, unless you figure out what "shall not be infringed" means, you won't get our votes.

bwiese
10-14-2009, 11:28 AM
Right back atcha. He could just as easily have included the extra _clause_ and stated self-defense. He deliberately chose not to do so. Rather than just saying "Oh, it's all right, it's Jerry", why don't you question _his_ motives as closely as you'd question those of Tom Campbell or Meg Whitman.

Jeezus, guys. You give him a pass based on very little _public, factual evidence_. All I'm saying is, subject him to the same scrutiny you would any other candidate. Scrutiny that's been (so far) singularly lacking.


When Gene Hoffman and I and a couple of others here say something like this, you should believe us.

Don't expect him to wave an NRA sign or say 'free handguns' for all.

The naivete here astounds me.

The fact that the NRA and its attorneys have gone out of the way to say nice things, sometimes cryptically, should say a lot.

Take that logic one step further. He could have mentioned the DC case, which formerly used the CA roster, and dropped it like a hot potato once challenged in Federal court. Did he? No.

The DC Roster case was a slam dunk. No help was needed on an indefensible situation. DC ran away from Roster so fast they had to pass emergency regulations essentially putting all production handguns on it.
Hey, we don't call a tow-truck to start our cars in the morning, either - we just use the key.

Figure it out. He's trying to defend the roster before the USSC as a reasonable regulation under incorporation.

Those were dressup side issues for politics. The only thing that mattered in the brief was the request/viewpoint for incorporation. The matter being briefed did not deal with the Roster.

oldrifle
10-14-2009, 11:29 AM
He'd be much more electable being pro-gun, pro-gay, pro-choice than anti-gun, anti-gay, anti-choice.

Good point, Bill. I totally agree with that statement.

Hey, have you ever considered running for office? I've been reading your posts over the last couple of years and your analysis is always so clear and supported by fact. I think you could do well, based on what I've heard from you.

dantodd
10-14-2009, 11:30 AM
Actually, he didn't. Here's an oped he wroteabout the Patriot act, which might provide some substantive contribution, vs. the interesting attempts at spin.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/20/opinion/oe-campbell20

I stand corrected. I still feel it is stupid to hold up a law with which you disagree as analog for a law you purport to support but there it is he has done just that.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 11:37 AM
Tom--
You and I have discussed this some previously. I wrote that brief earlier this summer for you, for example.

We disagree. I appreciate that you're willing to be forthright and honest about your positions, but, on this set of issues, we are far apart.

You ask for evidence, or reasoning that is persuasive. Frankly, I always thought that that's the way to discuss this set of issues with you - not polemic, not baiting with political support, but reasoned, based on the law and the evidence. So let's continue the discussion we had this summer, here, if you're willing.

One issue you raised with me, and was again raised in your letter posted here, was that types of "public carry" might appropriate in one part of the state, and not in another. That people might "freak out" at widespread public carry. A few points that I'd like you to consider:
- In CA, unloaded open carry is already legal, via the state legislature. Anybody can, as long as the weapon is not loaded.
- In CA, according to the law, concealed carry is the preferred means of loaded public carry. I'm sure many here could live with that, were permits for concealed carry granted on a uniform, logical, consistent basis. Unfortunately, by allowing the local issuing office discretion on the matter, "uniform", "logical", and "consistent" all go out the window. We have documented evidence from multiple counties of permits being granted mostly on a patronage basis. We have Orange County, where permits were granted on one basis under one Sheriff, and those selfsame permits were revoked under a new Sheriff. There's documentary evidence from Santa Clara County that you pretty much _must_ be rich/well-connected to get a permit, where denials are arbitrary and have much more to do with "who you know" than any objective set of needs or qualification-based criteria.
- We also have significant experiential data via the UOC (unloaded open carry) movement in CA that open carry does _not_ cause people to freak out. You can find this just browsing the 2A section in here - people have been posting their experiences doing UOC expeditions. Which, you will note, backs up the point that I made to you earlier this year, that open carry doesn't really seem to freak out anybody but the major news networks. Locals tend to not give a damn, even in major metropolitan areas like Phoenix or San Diego.

Anyway, let's start with this, and we'll get into other issues as we progress.

Charlie Prael

Dear dfletcher,

I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

bwiese
10-14-2009, 11:38 AM
Good point, Bill. I totally agree with that statement.

Hey, have you ever considered running for office? I've been reading your posts over the last couple of years and your analysis is always so clear and supported by fact. I think you could do well, based on what I've heard from you.

Naaw. I'm a productive member of society.

And when I proposed shooting people wearing Birkenstocks, that displeased some :)

bwiese
10-14-2009, 11:39 AM
Chuckles48,
Some pretty good points in that letter/msg.

elSquid
10-14-2009, 11:42 AM
Right back atcha. He could just as easily have included the extra _clause_ and stated self-defense. He deliberately chose not to do so. Rather than just saying "Oh, it's all right, it's Jerry", why don't you question _his_ motives as closely as you'd question those of Tom Campbell or Meg Whitman.

I certainly have. Compare Brown with Whitman and Campbell: which of the three has the best record on the 2nd?

Jeezus, guys. You give him a pass based on very little _public, factual evidence_. All I'm saying is, subject him to the same scrutiny you would any other candidate. Scrutiny that's been (so far) singularly lacking.

I find it funny that you castigate those inclined towards Brown, yet give Campbell a pass. For a moment ignore the fact that he's a personal friend of yours and was a thesis advisor for you: why should anyone who cares about the 2nd support Tom Campbell?

Take that logic one step further. He could have mentioned the DC case, which formerly used the CA roster, and dropped it like a hot potato once challenged in Federal court. Did he? No.

Figure it out. He's trying to defend the roster before the USSC as a reasonable regulation under incorporation.

Are you really going tell me that the issues in Peña will survive scrutiny?

Face it, the AG's mention of the roster and Peña was a slowly tossed softball, begging for a hit.

YES, he supports incorporation. But, from the bleacher seats, it appears that's a pretty limited version of incorporation. Not the expansive version many people here want.

Supporting incorporation is huge. If we get that and nothing more, that's a massive win.

AG Brown asked for clarification of the roster and Peña. Bearing in mind the facts brought up in Peña, what is the probability that the roster is constitutional?

-- Michael

dantodd
10-14-2009, 11:43 AM
Yeah, it's a small step from "in the home" to "in the home for self-defense". But my point was that while he supports incorporation, he didn't take that small step.

And yes, support for incorporation is a good thing. Don't get me wrong. I'm simply saying that people have a habit around here of reading more into the tea leaves than what's necessarily there.

Huh? Are you claiming that JB supports incorporating the 2A and supports firearms "in the home" but not "in the home for self defense?"

I would truly like to know what you read that brought you to this conclusion.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 11:45 AM
When Gene Hoffman and I and a couple of others here say something like this, you should believe us.

Well, will you believe me now when I say (and said...) that Tom's willing to listen to a well-reasoned argument on gun control issues?

Or let me put it this way: I'm giving your opinion of Jerry Brown the exact same amount of respect you gave my opinion of Tom Campbell.

You can feel free to not like that all you like.

Those were dressup side issues for politics. The only thing that mattered in the brief was the request/viewpoint for incorporation. The matter being briefed did not deal with the Roster.

Correct. Which means there was no useful reason to include the Roster in his brief. Hell, if he needed window-dressing on that front, he could have used the AWB, which is _not_ subject to pending court action, and was _not_ just tossed on its ear in DC, and which less directly affects the "at home for self-defense" issue.

Mute
10-14-2009, 11:47 AM
Mr. Campbell. I respect the fact that you're willing to come herer and have an open dialog. Now let me explain why you'll never have my support until I see a fundamental and permanent change in your twisted understanding of the 2nd Amendment and what you consider to be acceptable and reasonable gun control.

First, is the idea that "well regulated" means government control of law-abiding individual's exercise of their right to keep and bear arms. It's quite clear in this one instance that you've bought into the disingenuous proclamation by anti-gun rights groups that will have you believe that "regulated" means something other than maintained or cared for (e.g. a well regulated watch that is keeping time accurately).

Second. Your support of the AWB. The first and biggest lie is the idea that these types of firearms that are banned as "assault weapons" even meets the definition except when applied towards the tortured and wholly fabricated meaning of the term created by the Clinton administration to include all semi-automatic weapons that "look" evil. "Assault rifles" on the other hand defines a category of rifles that are fully automatic or select-fire capable (i.e., fires more than one round with a single squeeze of the trigger). In case you didn't know, those are nearly impossible to own in CA except by law enforcement or those in the entertainment industry. A ban seems rather superfluous. It's also quite amazing that gang members and criminals (like the north Hollywood robbery perpetrators) seem to have no problem getting these items in spite of the ban.

In addition to the above, firearms that qualify as "assault weapons" under CA's perverted definition are used in less than one percent of all crimes committed with firearms in almost every category. However, the biggest sin of the AWB and all similar laws is that they create the illusion that the politicians who support them "did something" to fight crime when in fact they have done nothing and more likely than not actually have hurt the cause. This is the case because we are told the lie that enough is done to fix crime with the existence of these laws and efforts that otherwise would have truly made a difference are now set aside or forgotten as a result.

Third, is your support of the CA approved list. Private party transfers of guns not on the approved list are perfectly legal. Are they then, somehow, more dangerous than those on the list or those that are in the hands of law enforcement (who are exempt from this sillyness)? It's an absolute and disgraceful failure of logic to somehow believe that this list does any public good. We are talking about handguns, so your field artillery example is a straw man argument at best.

I could go on and on, but I'll spare you and the rest of the board. As I said before, until I see a fundamental change in your stance on this matter, not only will you not have my support, I will dedicate all my effort and skill into making sure you never hold a public office in CA.

Respectfully,
Alex Tham

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 11:53 AM
I find it funny that you castigate those inclined towards Brown, yet give Campbell a pass.

Actually, I haven't given Tom a pass, if you'll bother to read my prior posts on the matter. Or if you need it a little more blatantly, consider this (http://chuckles48.livejournal.com/363374.html). I'll spell it out for you: I've supported him for ~20 years, and I'm willing to vote for someone else over this.

For a moment ignore the fact that he's a personal friend of yours and was a thesis advisor for you: why should anyone who cares about the 2nd support Tom Campbell?

Because he's the only viable candidate on the Republican side of the primary who is even willing to _listen_ to CGF and our concerns about 2A rights. He was willing to come on here and talk to y'all. Whitman? Poizner? Talk to the hand, cause the rest ain't listening.

Supporting incorporation is huge. If we get that and nothing more, that's a massive win.

Yep. It is. And for that, I give him credit.

AG Brown asked for clarification of the roster and Peña. Bearing in mind the facts brought up in Peña, what is the probability that the roster is constitutional?

Depends. If the USSC cites the roster as being a reasonable regulation, Pena's probably a dead letter, wouldn't you say?

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 11:54 AM
His brief.

Huh? Are you claiming that JB supports incorporating the 2A and supports firearms "in the home" but not "in the home for self defense?"

I would truly like to know what you read that brought you to this conclusion.

elSquid
10-14-2009, 12:10 PM
Because he's the only viable candidate on the Republican side of the primary who is even willing to _listen_ to CGF and our concerns about 2A rights. He was willing to come on here and talk to y'all. Whitman? Poizner? Talk to the hand, cause the rest ain't listening.

True, he has shown up today to talk, so he does get points for that.

However, he's also the one with the antigun history to overcome.

If Campbell and Whitman have essentially the same positions on the 2nd, wouldn't it then be rational to support Whitman because she is a clean slate?

Shouldn't the firearms community remember Campbell's past and vote accordingly?

Depends. If the USSC cites the roster as being a reasonable regulation, Pena's probably a dead letter, wouldn't you say?

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Peña brings up specific issues with the roster, do you think those issues will survive constitutional scrutiny?

-- Michael

oaklander
10-14-2009, 12:13 PM
When people "in the know," like Bill and Gene say that Jerry Brown is our friend, it makes sense to believe them.

There are concrete reasons they say this, and those reasons can't be divulged for political reasons.

wash
10-14-2009, 12:16 PM
DC already ran away with it's tail between it's legs rather than try to defend it's roster.

That sounds like a battle they knew they were going to lose.

After incorporation the California roster will not stand.

GuyW
10-14-2009, 12:23 PM
Because he's the only viable candidate on the Republican side of the primary who is even willing to _listen_ to CGF and our concerns about 2A rights. He was willing to come on here and talk to y'all. Whitman? Poizner? Talk to the hand, cause the rest ain't listening.


And that's a DAMN good start. But at this time - its only a start....
.

bwiese
10-14-2009, 12:23 PM
Depends. If the USSC cites the roster as being a reasonable regulation, Pena's probably a dead letter, wouldn't you say?

The USSC won't cite the Roster as regulation because the Roster won't (at least highly unlikely) go to the Supremes once incorporation hits.

And DC ran away from the Roster so quickly they had to create emergency regulations to dump just about every production handgun out there onto it.

The Roster also has non-RKBA issues too - Harrott issues of specificity plus interference with Federal warranty issues and replacement parts monopoly issues.

dfletcher
10-14-2009, 12:26 PM
Dear dfletcher,

I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

Tom,

Thank you for posting.

As I posted elsewhere I appreciate that you've given direct answers regardless of whether or not doing so is popular. You've been in public service for a while, so I'd presume the responses, given the subject, are not unexpected. Nor do think the other candidates will suddenly discover as a result of this exchange that being vague has its advantages - given their background I'm sure it's a lesson long ago learned. I would say at some point the other candidates have to be more forthcoming also.

Doug

artherd
10-14-2009, 12:33 PM
When people "in the know," like Bill and Gene say that Jerry Brown is our friend, it makes sense to believe them.

There are concrete reasons they say this, and those reasons can't be divulged for political reasons.

+1. We don't exactly eat dinner at home every night...

wash
10-14-2009, 12:55 PM
I don't understand why some people insist on arguing with Gene and Bill on matters that they have expert level knowledge.

Well, I do understand a little. I never liked "Nuch" Truantich and couldn't endorse him for city attorney even though his opponent was much worse.

But any way, both Gene and Bill are extremely knowledgeable about the law. If Gene told me he was a lawyer, I would believe him. Bill doesn't really act like a lawyer but I wouldn't put it past him either. They are also board members of CGF and have the ear of the best second amendment lawyers in the country. Evidently they are interacting with a lot of politicians as well.

Maybe some of you don't know that about them but when they tell me that Jerry Brown is a friend, I believe it.

When Tom Campbell comes in here and says, hey I support the second amendment but I won't let you buy a Colt 1911A1 like your Grandfather carried in the war, I'm going to support bills that will make buying ammo more expensive and a big hassle and I don't want you to have a few of these rifles that are perfectly legal in Nevada because they look scary, friend is not the impression I get.

My advice to Tom is be tough on crime, but we're not criminals.

Go after straw purchases and burglars, that's how crooks get guns.

The reasonable regulations that you endorse are going to be found unreasonable in court. The writing is on the wall. We are looking for a candidate that will accept that and get on with it, not a gun grabber looking for more ways to "reasonably" take away our right to own guns.

mattmcg
10-14-2009, 1:07 PM
Tom, I would like to express my appreciation for you participating in the active dialog that consists of some of the top minds in CA when it comes to "fair and reasonable" state regulations on our 2nd amendment rights. Obviously there is a lot of passion behind many of the statements posted on this board and Calguns members as a whole are becoming a larger voting block by the day.

I believe Calguns membership has grown significantly because of traditionally conservative 2A members that have finally drawn a line in the sand about what has been considered fair and reasonable and felt that "big government" was encroaching upon their fundamental rights. They have chosen to join the forum to band together to ensure the line does not move any further. Given that many of us are well educated and productive members of society that follow law and politics closely to support our cause should not be a surprise.

I believe you have a great opportunity to read and understand some of the concerns that competitive shooters, target shooters, LEO, and personal defense oriented citizens have on this board. Albeit the dialogue may be somewhat raw or pointed is only a sign of good people expressing themselves to improve things for everyone.

Please be sure to look around and you will see a very diverse and large group of opinionated patriots that would love nothing more than to fully embrace a representative that vows to defend and protect their values. I look forward to hearing about any insight that you may gather from the forums and how new insight may shed light on how you see your candidateship enacting change in this state.

dantodd
10-14-2009, 1:16 PM
His brief.

Please quote the part where he says he doesn't support the use of "guns in the home" for defense.

ZRX61
10-14-2009, 1:37 PM
Campbell:

Supports banning "cop-killer" bullets.



So, pretty much ANY ammo used by hunters excluding shotgun rounds? That'l go over well...

dfletcher
10-14-2009, 1:40 PM
If Campbell and Whitman have essentially the same positions on the 2nd, wouldn't it then be rational to support Whitman because she is a clean slate?

-- Michael

We can not know if Whitman's position is the same as Campbell's because she has been mostly quiet on the subject. Others have asked questions on her site or called and get a generic "thank you for asking, let me direct you to our website" response. I am willing to set separately from her's the corporate policy of EBay & Paypal, but that she will not speak candidly on guns as a Republican candidate is not helpful.

Having "a clean slate" means she could have the same position on guns as Gavin Newsom.

bwiese
10-14-2009, 1:40 PM
Please quote the part where he says he doesn't support the use of "guns in the home" for defense.

Especially as he owns his dad's Colt 38.

artherd
10-14-2009, 1:40 PM
Tom, thank you for coming on here.

I believe some of your views to be talking-points of the anti-rights crowd. That may or may not be intentional. If not...

If you'd like to discuss the present legal status of the 2nd amendment with the finest lawyers in the country, that can be arranged.


Otherwise; the same level of scrutiny for the 1st Amendment should apply to the second. As we know speech can be one of the most incredibly dangerous weapons ever created.

* This allows for permits and registration for parades just as it does for permits and registration to carry a weapon concealed.

* However it does not allow for banning a public speaker just because he is black, nor does our law allow for banning a rifle because it is black.

elSquid
10-14-2009, 1:53 PM
We can not know if Whitman's position is the same as Campbell's because she has been mostly quiet on the subject. Others have asked questions on her site or called and get a generic "thank you for asking, let me direct you to our website" response. I am willing to set separately from her's the corporate policy of EBay & Paypal, but that she will not speak candidly on guns as a Republican candidate is not helpful.

Having "a clean slate" means she could have the same position on guns as Gavin Newsom.

Yup. I was just playing the "if you had to pick a Republican" game...

...thankfully, we don't have to.

-- Michael

oaklander
10-14-2009, 1:56 PM
She's anti-gun too. Google meg whitman gun control. She supports limiting handguns and an AWB.

ETA: in her own words: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/13/BACU15SUDJ.DTL

We can not know if Whitman's position is the same as Campbell's because she has been mostly quiet on the subject. Others have asked questions on her site or called and get a generic "thank you for asking, let me direct you to our website" response. I am willing to set separately from her's the corporate policy of EBay & Paypal, but that she will not speak candidly on guns as a Republican candidate is not helpful.

Having "a clean slate" means she could have the same position on guns as Gavin Newsom.

hoffmang
10-14-2009, 2:06 PM
Mr. Campbell,

I'd like to reiterate the thank you for engaging.

Let's get to the heart of the matter as banning half of handguns and 10% of common rifles is certainly an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms but isn't the heart of the matter.

Bear arms means to carry. In the 19th century south, otherwise law abiding people were getting drunk and killing each other because one guy didn't know the other guy was concealing a firearm so a bar room brawl became homicidal. The world has moved on. Now the policy preference is to make sure that those who carry in public are trained and licensed and should carry concealed to keep others from being alarmed. It works in Texas, Florida, Virginia, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. Portland and Berkley or Palo Alto are not at all that different other than Portland being a bit more urban.

In none of the very large, populous, urban cities and states where shall issue carry licensing is dejure is there a problem with law abiding citizens carrying arms.

Since we live nearby to each other (and share the same birth date, but not year..) I'd like the chance to buy you a cup of coffee or a meal and walk you through both the legal and public policy arguments that I think you're not sufficiently addressing in your current thinking. I'm easily reachable at hoffmang at hoffmang.com.

-Gene

RaceDay
10-14-2009, 2:14 PM
It is good to see Tom Campbell posting to the forum. Hopefully somebody will educate him on what regulated militia meant in the 1780's. It did not mean that a bunch of people were sitting in an ivory tower deciding what the militia could and could not own. It meant that the militia was well drilled in their weapons; rather than be a bunch of Yosemite Sams the American militiaman would be able to take up arms in his country's defense and use them effectively.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 2:19 PM
The USSC won't cite the Roster as regulation because the Roster won't (at least highly unlikely) go to the Supremes once incorporation hits.

Then you're missing it. Because, courtesy of _our friend_ Jerry Brown, the roster is already before the Supremes.

What I'm _hoping_ is that they ignore the attempted end-around, and just deal with the issues in MacDonald and the incorporation issue. What I _know_ is that the roster has now been cited in an amicus brief as a reasonable regulation. What neither you nor I know is whether the Supremes will actually _accept_ that the roster is a reasonable regulation.

Three different things - hope, knowledge, and lack-of-knowledge.

Which is something that is really, seriously getting ignored here.

And DC ran away from the Roster so quickly they had to create emergency regulations to dump just about every production handgun out there onto it.

The Roster also has non-RKBA issues too - Harrott issues of specificity plus interference with Federal warranty issues and replacement parts monopoly issues.

Yep, and if the Supremes choose _not_ to cite the roster as an example of reasonable regulation, then those are all avenues to attack it, and almost certainly get it dumped.

But the most you can do on that front is hope that that's the case, until the case is argued and an opinion comes out. And hope is not facts on the ground. It may be 90%+ likely hope, but it's still hope.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 2:21 PM
Since we live nearby to each other (and share the same birth date, but not year..) I'd like the chance to buy you a cup of coffee or a meal and walk you through both the legal and public policy arguments that I think you're not sufficiently addressing in your current thinking. I'm easily reachable at hoffmang at hoffmang.com.

-Gene

Gene-- One small issue. IIRC, Tom's living in Orange County at the moment - visiting scholar @ UCI for the time being. Not sure when he's going to be back up here.

But... good on you. ;>

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 2:24 PM
I don't understand why some people insist on arguing with Gene and Bill on matters that they have expert level knowledge.
...
But any way, both Gene and Bill are extremely knowledgeable about the law. If Gene told me he was a lawyer, I would believe him. Bill doesn't really act like a lawyer but I wouldn't put it past him either. They are also board members of CGF and have the ear of the best second amendment lawyers in the country. Evidently they are interacting with a lot of politicians as well.

Given the treatment they gave me over Mr. Campbell, I'm inclined to give their opinions _as much_ respect.

They asked for outside verification of what I was saying. I feel I have the same justification, to ask for the same outside verification of facts of what they say about Jerry Brown.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 2:25 PM
Please quote the part where he says he doesn't support the use of "guns in the home" for defense.

That would be the part where he supports the possession of guns in the home, but omits "self defense".

Much like DC was willing to allow possession of guns in the home. As long as they were useless for self-defense.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 2:28 PM
When people "in the know," like Bill and Gene say that Jerry Brown is our friend, it makes sense to believe them.

There are concrete reasons they say this, and those reasons can't be divulged for political reasons.

Hmmm. Sounds remarkable like Colin Powell's presentation to the UNSC.

"Trust, but verify". Remember why that entered the common vernacular?

slowjonn
10-14-2009, 2:36 PM
I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

I was so annoyed reading about Mr. Campbell last night that I fired off an email to him. I gave some pertinent examples and reasons as to why his 2A stance is misguided. He replied today, WITH THE EXACT response as quoted above. There was a two line personal paragraph at the end directed at me.

In light of seeing the exact same response here as the one I received, and that he has not responded to any comments here yet, I don't think he is really interested in seeing another view, despite what he says.

The response that I and this board received really didn't address ANY of the reasons he may be misguided. I read it as just another politician patting himself on the back for stating his position and past accomplishments. He has done nothing, other than show up here, to sway me what so ever.

Mr. Campbell, YOU ARE WRONG ON YOUR 2A STANCES (in more ways than one)!!! You will not get my vote sir!

wash
10-14-2009, 2:39 PM
Given the treatment they gave me over Mr. Campbell, I'm inclined to give their opinions _as much_ respect.

They asked for outside verification of what I was saying. I feel I have the same justification, to ask for the same outside verification of facts of what they say about Jerry Brown.
Outside verification?

Why go outside when you are inside?

The amicus brief along with a remarkable lack of anti-gun evidence from a democrat career politician is plenty.

I know that Tom Campbell is very up front with his views, it's just too bad he's wrong about the meaning of the second amendment.

Charliegone
10-14-2009, 2:58 PM
I don't think he even understand what the AW ban does....it doesn't ban full-auto firearms.:rolleyes:

oldrifle
10-14-2009, 3:18 PM
This may be a dumb question, but we're sure the "Tom Campbell" posting here is the real Tom Campbell right? inb4 :TFH:

bwiese
10-14-2009, 3:58 PM
This may be a dumb question, but we're sure the "Tom Campbell" posting here is the real Tom Campbell right? inb4 :TFH:

Fair chance it might not be.

Given the well-written nature and reinforcement of various points, a rational discussion based on his misunderstandings - plus some Calgunners like Chuckles48 being in contact with him or his campaign - it's likely.

In any case, even if it weren't Tom Campbell, the points a supposed 'fake Tom Campbell' made so well mesh with his prior statements that refutation of a putative false Tom Campbell is sufficient refutation of the real Tom Campbell.

ricochet
10-14-2009, 6:07 PM
Its sad how badly these politicians truly miss the point that our founding fathers had in mind. Guns werent around simply for self defense and simply to help people police...it was there to intimidate and scare our politicians. It sounds rash and crude, but they wanted our leaders to fear us.

FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUN (or artillery piece)

otteray
10-14-2009, 6:37 PM
4) I favor different solutions for different parts of California: a weapon
reasonable to keep in farm or mountain country might be unreasonable to keep
in a major city.

That Tom Cambell quote sure reminds me of a talking point made in an Obama speech during the election.
"I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne"

He sure sure lost any chance of my vote.

dfletcher
10-14-2009, 6:41 PM
The basic premise which seems to have the support of our Republican candidates is that the focus of gun control in CA should continue to be the lawful gun owner, to gradually diminishing the marketplace for guns and increase the difficulty one must endure to purchase, own and use a gun. In effect, gun control by inconvenience and attrition.

Perhaps we should apply this approach to the misuse of motor vehicles. Sports cars made before a certain date - those dastardly red two seaters for example - can be kept by their current owners, but driven only on a closed course. And when their owners don't want them or pass on, it's off to the crusher, no inheritance for little Scooter or Babs.

Obviously a stick shift requires a special license and nothing over four cylinders - that would encourage speeding. No buying a car and taking delivery the same day - even if you've been driving for 30 years. In this hi tech state it will take 10 days to check out your license and record first.

I'm sure we could rig those gas pumps to take ID and fingerprint before dispensing gasoline, after all - no gas = no vehicle misuse, correct?

And obviously, if my next door neighbor is caught driving drunk I have to turn in my car keys for that Saturday night. :rolleyes:

dantodd
10-14-2009, 6:43 PM
That would be the part where he supports the possession of guns in the home, but omits "self defense".

Much like DC was willing to allow possession of guns in the home. As long as they were useless for self-defense.

Why can you jump to the conclusion that that he is therefore against the use of the firearm for "self-defense" but get upset when someone suggests that the inclusion of the Patriot Act in a position statement has meaning? It seems an odd double standard that deconstructing one statement is perfectly reasonable but it is not reasonable to do the same with another.

I can easily point you to the law, which AG Brown enforces, that specifically states that using a gun in the home for self-defense is acceptable. Since he is charged with the enforcement of this law and has made no affirmative statement contrary to the law is it not reasonable to assume that he does not find it offensive? He has certainly shown that when he feels strongly about a law (such as Prop 8) that he will speak out against it.

rolo
10-14-2009, 6:45 PM
Nice! I'll make sure I bury my unregistered v8 in case of need.

hoffmang
10-14-2009, 7:42 PM
Then you're missing it. Because, courtesy of _our friend_ Jerry Brown, the roster is already before the Supremes.


1. The roster case is not "in front of the Supremes" in the way you're trying to imply. In fact everyone involved with the case is quite happy that the Heller 5's clerks can see what passes for "reasonable" in California. Please remember that that case is a companion to a DC case which was in the SCOTUS local paper plenty.

2. If Jerry Brown's amicus was so without bite, why did the LCAV attorney for Alameda County stumble so much when confronted with it by the 9th Circuit.

Jerry Brown is more pro gun than Tom Campbell and that's self evident by Mr. Brown's actions and Tom Campbell's words.

-Gene

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 9:01 PM
Why can you jump to the conclusion that that he is therefore against the use of the firearm for "self-defense" but get upset when someone suggests that the inclusion of the Patriot Act in a position statement has meaning? It seems an odd double standard that deconstructing one statement is perfectly reasonable but it is not reasonable to do the same with another.

Because I happened to know (because I'd done the research) that TC's position on the specific cited (the Patriot act) was counter to what was being asserted.

You'll note that there are no similarly probative statements by Jerry Brown on the matter - he has very thoroughly avoided addressing the issue in any manner that would allow for a definitive statement of his views. And that is also something I've spent a fair amount of time doing the research on.

I can easily point you to the law, which AG Brown enforces, that specifically states that using a gun in the home for self-defense is acceptable. Since he is charged with the enforcement of this law and has made no affirmative statement contrary to the law is it not reasonable to assume that he does not find it offensive?

That would be the same law that provides for an escalating scale of force, proportionate to the force presented by the attacker?

That isn't useful self-defense unless you have a mass/reach/skill advantage over your opponent. And California does _not_ have castle doctrine. If I break into your home, and initially present no firearm, you are not justified under CA law to pull a gun, and shooting me becomes an act of aggravated assault under current law. If I then DO pull a gun, you have to go get yours. While I'm shooting at you.

He has certainly shown that when he feels strongly about a law (such as Prop 8) that he will speak out against it.

Which also demonstrates that he will ignore the validity of the law and his responsibilities as state AG if he politically differs with the law.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 9:08 PM
1. The roster case is not "in front of the Supremes" in the way you're trying to imply. In fact everyone involved with the case is quite happy that the Heller 5's clerks can see what passes for "reasonable" in California. Please remember that that case is a companion to a DC case which was in the SCOTUS local paper plenty.

Well, you never answered my question on that front, you know. I asked why Jerry didn't simply sign on to the 33 state amicus brief, if he was so pro-incorporation.

The only logical reason I can deduce for filing a separate amicus brief is because (a) he needed to score some political points otherwise; (b) he disagreed with parts of the 33 state amicus brief; or (c) he needed/wanted something in his amicus brief that wasn't in the 33 state brief.

If you look at (c), what's the significant difference? The "our regulations are reasonable" portion.

2. If Jerry Brown's amicus was so without bite, why did the LCAV attorney for Alameda County stumble so much when confronted with it by the 9th Circuit.

I would suggest that that says more about LCAV's attorney than anything else. But then, Alameda County, and LCAV, have not ever struck me as the sharpest set of pencils in the box.

Jerry Brown is more pro gun than Tom Campbell and that's self evident by Mr. Brown's actions and Tom Campbell's words.
-Gene

Which is actually not something that I disagree with. It has a great deal to do with why I said publicly that I'd be willing to break with Tom, after 20+ years, and support Jerry over this specific set of issues.

Problem is, when talking about the Republican primary, it's also irrelevant.

GuyW
10-14-2009, 9:24 PM
If I break into your home, and initially present no firearm, you are not justified under CA law to pull a gun, and shooting me becomes an act of aggravated assault under current law. If I then DO pull a gun, you have to go get yours. While I'm shooting at you.

? That's not what the Penal Code says.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

.

Sgt Raven
10-14-2009, 9:32 PM
Because I happened to know (because I'd done the research) that TC's position on the specific cited (the Patriot act) was counter to what was being asserted.

You'll note that there are no similarly probative statements by Jerry Brown on the matter - he has very thoroughly avoided addressing the issue in any manner that would allow for a definitive statement of his views. And that is also something I've spent a fair amount of time doing the research on.



That would be the same law that provides for an escalating scale of force, proportionate to the force presented by the attacker?

That isn't useful self-defense unless you have a mass/reach/skill advantage over your opponent. And California does _not_ have castle doctrine. If I break into your home, and initially present no firearm, you are not justified under CA law to pull a gun, and shooting me becomes an act of aggravated assault under current law. If I then DO pull a gun, you have to go get yours. While I'm shooting at you.



Which also demonstrates that he will ignore the validity of the law and his responsibilities as state AG if he politically differs with the law.

Bull, you don't know much about California's Castle law, do you? If you break into my domicile I have the presumption that my life is in danger of gross bodily harm or death.

dantodd
10-14-2009, 9:42 PM
Bull, you don't know much about California's Castle law, do you? If you break into my domicile I have the presumption that my life is in danger of gross bodily harm or death.

Trying to convince chuckles that Tom isn't the best choice for governor is like trying to talk a stump out of the ground. Ain't gonna happen and you'll just end up short of breath.

wash
10-14-2009, 10:05 PM
B-b-but Tom Campbell is a republican...

So what?

To paraphrase Eddie Murphy: What have you done for me lately, Tom?

bigstick61
10-14-2009, 11:20 PM
I think we all know the GOP candidates with any chance of wining the primary are at best for the status quo (for the most part), anti-gun at worst. The question is about alternatives, but as I think many know, not all of us are single issue voters, and there is the question of whether we can afford to be with the State in the shape it is. Except for Brown, the Dems are anti-gun and also, IMO, have terrible platforms. Brown has the appearance of being pro-gun, which is promising there, but what else does he have going for him? What are his stances overall? That ultimately will determine whether myself and probably others as well vote for him or not. If he is pro-gun but I don't like much else of what I see, I quite frankly won't vote for the man. I'll probably end up voting for a third party or independent candidate unless I see something promising come out of the GOP primaries. Just saying Brown is pro-gun based on some of his recent actions ultimately means little to me at this point; I need more than that.

dantodd
10-14-2009, 11:30 PM
The question is about alternatives, but as I think many know, not all of us are single issue voters, and there is the question of whether we can afford to be with the State in the shape it is.

There are many here who voted for Obama because they are not single-issue voters. Your willingness to vote against your gun rights to support other rights is equally logical. But this is a gun board and not a general politics board so you will get considerably less input on "other issues" and likely have people from all sides of those "other issues" so we tend to keep to the gun topic here.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 11:46 PM
Trying to convince chuckles that Tom isn't the best choice for governor is like trying to talk a stump out of the ground. Ain't gonna happen and you'll just end up short of breath.

Stop being an *****hat. That, or go read the rest of the damn thread.

Here, let me repeat it for the literacy-impaired: after 20 years of supporting him, I'm willing to vote for Jerry Brown over this issue.

chuckles48
10-14-2009, 11:51 PM
Bull, you don't know much about California's Castle law, do you? If you break into my domicile I have the presumption that my life is in danger of gross bodily harm or death.

People v. Ceballos: burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'
Including in your home.

You need to review CALCRIM 506:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/calcrim_juryins.pdf
Starts at pp321 in the pdf.
But here's the key point:
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how
likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have
believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/herself/
[or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable
and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The
defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a
reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation.
If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, then the
[attempted] killing was not justified.

Thanks for playing.

otteray
10-15-2009, 6:04 AM
People v. Ceballos: burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'
Including in your home.

You need to review CALCRIM 506:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/calcrim_juryins.pdf
Starts at pp321 in the pdf.
But here's the key point:
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how
likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have
believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/herself/
[or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable
and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The
defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a
reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation.
If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, then the
[attempted] killing was not justified.

Thanks for playing.

Common sense tells me the spirit of the law is that if someone breaks into your home and you strongly fear that his intent is to harm you right now; then he is fair game. If you wait until he picks up your stereo or other valuable, it's to late.
That's our castle doctrine.

rolo
10-15-2009, 6:22 AM
"Oh no! He's coming right for us!"

cowboyup
10-15-2009, 7:27 AM
Hello, Tom,

I thank you for the honesty of your reply and your presence here.

You have, however, clarified why I and many hundreds of thousands of other California gunnies cannot vote for you - or, in fact, any other Republican candidate for Governor. (To your slight credit, your other Republican compatriots for Governor's office are equally weak, if not having the detailed history of antigun statements that you've made over the past decade.)

And given the thin support for Republicans in CA - there's an extra mountain to climb for any Republican statewide candidate - we in the past figured gunrights might be a 'hook' to bring gunnies in en masse. Guess we're not valuable to you or the party - so the party that's alienated a lot of fundamentally middle-road/swing voters has added yet another group it's kicked in the teeth.

You also display a terrible understanding of (or, perhaps, recast them in disingenuous terms to make your positions supposedly palatable to some) both California's gun laws and the Heller decision. Your positions indicate you either spoke/wrote without analysis - which is not a hearty recommendation for a supposedly 'brainy' and 'professorial' candidate - or you just don't give a damn about technicalities and freedom, and the fact that these laws have zero effect on crime or safety.

Bottom line, Heller allows firearms that are not "dangerous and unusual" - and the 'and' is highly important and was not casually used. Militia concerns and the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment are not really relevant. You are correct Heller indeed does allow "reasonable restrictions" - including bans on firearms that *are* 'dangerous and unusual', felons in possession, avoiding mentally unstable having guns, etc. But once the 2nd amendment is 'incorporated' (as are many other Bill of Rights amendments) in a relatively short time frame, Heller concepts will no longer be applicable just to DC only, and will rain down into California.

Your commentary on use of the term "well-regulated" in regards to the (somewhat irrelevant) militia status also does not hold water: that terminology, in the parlance of the day, has been repeatedly documented to generally encompass the concepts of "well-provisioned, well-stocked, well-equipped" - as opposed to concepts of discipline, restriction or limitation.

California's assault weapons law bans trivial features on otherwise legal semauto firearms. The idea that a rifle that's legal with one style of stock/grip is illegal with another variant attached is laughable. 'Assault weapons' terminology also does NOT refer to fully automatic weapons. Your claim that CA's AW ban, if cancelled, would allow machineguns is laughable even with the proverbial "trailerpark redneck's" understanding of gun law. Machineguns (fully automatic) have effectively been banned via wholly separate California law (12200PC; assault weapons are in 12275PC et seq) in conjunction with various aspects of Federal law (Nat'l Firearms Act of 1934). So the 'machingun' termiology you threw in was diversionary, inflamatory and irrelevant.

California's AW ban bans guns that are common and ordinary (the semiauto AR15 is one of the hottest-selling rifles in US, as common as Ruger 10/22s and Remington 700 bolt-action rifles) - these cannot be banned due to Heller (after incorporation of the 2nd Amendment).

Bottom line, we're just tired of 53-year old plumbers in Manteca going to jail for having the wrong style grip or muzzle device on their rifle, or for people being arrested for having perfectly legal rifles due to confusion by law enforcement over the law. We're tired of outlaw regulatory agencies kicking people's doors down for unclear trivialities in regulatory law.

Your support of California's approved handgun Roster is laughable too. The origin of the law was to ban as many handguns as possible and use 'safety' criteria as a cover mantra. In fact, the originators of the law were stunned when low-cost handguns they first wanted to ban actually passed their tests with flying colors (because the law was formulated on political assumptions, not technical facts). With the Roster, we now end up with ridiculous situations where a handgun in one finish has been approved - but if you want it in another finish or barrel length, it's not. Minor details change Roster status - sometimes an ergonomically useful gun variant has not been Rostered. One plaintiff in current Pena v. Cid "Roster" litigation is a one-armed man who wants a left-hand configured Glock pistol for home defense - you want to deprive him of that? Another plaintiff wants to buy the exact revolver make/model that Dick Heller was allowed to acquire and retain, courtesy of the Supreme Court. You want to interfere with that?

One advantage to replies and stances such as yours is that it has helped remove the supposed 'lock' the California Republican party has had on gun rights matters. Gunnies now examine candidates in detail, and we gunnies are increasingly becoming "single-issue" voters. For a decade or two, we've been assumed to be default supporters based on friendly words, handwaving, and legislative 'No' votes on bad gun bills, and the occasional veto by a wishywashy governor. With the party slipping into legislative irrelevancy and many CA R's not willing to carry [there are notable fine exceptions - Doug LaMalfa and Curt Hagman have been true RKBA stalwarts] gun bills, we're tired of being taken for granted.

It's gotten so bad that, if the California Republican party were considered as an animal, it's genetically evolved into a breed where its gunrights appendage has atrophied into a useless stub - perhaps the best exemplar animal for this situation would be the eyes of the blind mole rats found in caves.

If you'd care for a bit of "re-education" with experts, I belive a conversation with Alan Gura (of the Heller decision) can be arranged.


-Bill Wiese

Thank you Mr. Wiese. Well Said.

ricochet
10-15-2009, 7:36 AM
Yeah, Yeah, Bill's our man; yes, he can ...

Very well put; thx

chuckles48
10-15-2009, 9:13 AM
Common sense tells me the spirit of the law is that if someone breaks into your home and you strongly fear that his intent is to harm you right now; then he is fair game. If you wait until he picks up your stereo or other valuable, it's to late.
That's our castle doctrine.

Common sense or not, I was quoting from the state jury instructions. Which tells you how the courts interpret our castle doctrine.

Y'know, I used to think the law meant what it said, too. Now I know it means what the last judge in line says it means, common sense be damned. I hope the lesson that teaches you that won't be as expensive as mine was.

dfletcher
10-15-2009, 10:02 AM
Common sense or not, I was quoting from the state jury instructions. Which tells you how the courts interpret our castle doctrine.

Y'know, I used to think the law meant what it said, too. Now I know it means what the last judge in line says it means, common sense be damned. I hope the lesson that teaches you that won't be as expensive as mine was.

One of my little concerns (not a great one, just a recurring thought) is that some little "five foot nothing" criminal is going to break into my house while I'm at home & later in court he's going to look even smaller next to 6'5" me.

"Do you mean to tell the court you feared 'great bodily harm' from this fellow? Please stand next to him so we get a better idea of what caused you such concern ...." :rolleyes:

With my luck the guy will be in a wheelchair too.

berto
10-15-2009, 10:08 AM
One of my little concerns (not a great one, just a recurring thought) is that some little "five foot nothing" criminal is going to break into my house while I'm at home & later in court he's going to look even smaller next to 6'5" me.

"Do you mean to tell the court you feared 'great bodily harm' from this fellow? Please stand next to him so we get a better idea of what caused you such concern ...." :rolleyes:

With my luck the guy will be in a wheelchair too.

Aim well.

But seriously, that kind of grandstanding by a prosecutor or ambulance chaser won't go over well, especially if the little twerp that got himself shot was armed. Maybe he grabbed a knife out of the kitchen right before he was permanently incapacitated.

chuckles48
10-15-2009, 12:04 PM
One of my little concerns (not a great one, just a recurring thought) is that some little "five foot nothing" criminal is going to break into my house while I'm at home & later in court he's going to look even smaller next to 6'5" me.

"Do you mean to tell the court you feared 'great bodily harm' from this fellow? Please stand next to him so we get a better idea of what caused you such concern ...." :rolleyes:

With my luck the guy will be in a wheelchair too.

I share that particular problem. ;>

Of course, I train (or, well, used to, and need to get back to) with a 5'4" Korean who can throw me around the mat with a twitch. Size ain't all it's cracked up to be.

FeuerFrei
10-15-2009, 3:28 PM
Tom Campbell?
Another Cali-RINO?
Really? I am so not surprised at all.
It is status quo with our golden state *****-clowns that we call legislators.

Tom Campbell
10-15-2009, 5:20 PM
Dear Bill Wiese,

I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

bwiese
10-15-2009, 6:09 PM
Dear Bill Wiese,

I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

Mr. Campbell,

Kudos for saying it's a personal right, but if it's limited to trivialities, and minor violations of the strictures of "Campbell's World of Guns" leads to felony (or any) prosecution, then we're nowhere. We already have that in CA: the wrong shape of plastic grip on your rifle makes one a felon, a one-armed man can't buy a left-handed variant of his chosen pistol, and another fellow Californian can't buy the small revolver Dick Heller was allowed to acuqire by the US Supreme Court. I'll take a Heller-affirmed world of guns any day: any gun sold anywhere in the US that's not "dangerous and unusual" will be California-legal.

You wrote, "...discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not."
We've been there & done that in my last iteration: every one of the items you claimed should be illegal or is banned will ultimately not be, under Heller-derived scrutiny: Heller allows regulation of 'dangerous and unusual' firearms, not items already common in California and throughout the rest of the country. There is zero legal basis for "country gun" vs. "city gun" sophistry; I didn't know that fundamental, enumerated civil rights with more than intermediate scrutiny had zipcode restrictions attached.

Just about every limit and every ban you've discussed or vocally supported has not been reasonable, as I've outlined in my prior response to you, especially in the post-[I]Heller world we now live in - and a world in which Heller limits will carry down into the states upon incorporation of the Second Amendment (which will likely happen in a fairly short timeframe).

I have zero confidence that if bad gun legislation gets thrown up to your possible prospective governancy (which is quite likely), you'll sign it - and cause us to burn tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees challenging (and winning) cases. Bottom line, you are still our enemy even if you hand us a token, fractionated right that we need to spend money expanding to the Founders' understanding.

Also, your bringing up of issues re: Yugoslavia is somewhat irrelevant given that many, many gunnies are Single Issue Voters. I'm most likely voting for a candidate that I may disagree with on many key issues, (including possibly taxation & certainly "green" matters) - but there have been nuanced details of significant pro-gunrights sentiments and statements over the past 20+ years.

Yes, afterward you can say, "So you won anyway, the courts are with you, so my stance was not relevant..." but you'd obstruct us, and cost us money. That defines an opponent to me.

Right now, Washington DC pols are still obtructing full realization of the Second Amendment - thru bureucratese that clearly violates Heller's strictures. Everytime we sue them they lose (or surrender faster than matters can be resolved in court.) All it's going to result in is an slight deferral of the denouement, and an eventual even larger transfer of funds from the good taxpayers of DC to Alan Gura.

Unless and until CA's firearms laws are rationalized to the rough equivalent of other "free" states, we'll keep fighting against, and voting against, your ilk. Sometimes we don't have much choice in CA and it's a contest of 'the best of the worst', but you've clearly helped us make our decision.

[On balance, your compatriots Poizner and Whitman are likely no better - so California gunnies can comfort themselves they can safely walk away from all Republican governnor candidates.]

You seem to be a "good government" type (but then all pols self-describe themselves similarly) so I'll just add that holding your position even in the face of Heller and incorporation will just be wasting taxpayer dollars.

Gunrights have evolved, especially in California, from what has been considered the "white male trailerpark redneck" field. Gunrights are supported by a wide variety of folks that are increasingly becoming politically unified despite their differences - traditional conservatives plus those on the left, gays/LGBT, high, middle and low income, folks of every ethnic background, seniors, younger folk just getting started, and housewives worried about security because 911 is minutes away when a front door can be kicked down in seconds. Go to a California rifle range today and you may well find more non-white-male shooters than from any other demographic.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

mofugly13
10-15-2009, 6:19 PM
Dear Bill Wiese,

I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

Dear dfletcher,

I knew my views would not be in line with many of those who had asked about them, but I respect those who disagree with me, and hope for a useful exchange. I've been wrong many times; when I've seen evidence or reasoning that is persuasive, I've changed my mind in the past. Perhaps you have too.

For a candidate, the wiser course, politically, is to stay vague on issues. I could easily have done that. Nothing compelled me to answer the questions sent to me. I could have just avoided going on the record.

But I didn't do that. I believe a candidate should answer questions, even when not popular. If the only consequence of my having been candid is that I get attacked, believe me, the other candidates will learn to keep it vague. The result is you will have no opportunity to engage in a useful discussion, and change their views, let alone mine.

I've been direct, and respectful. I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and defended it against encroachments when I was in Congress. Some might remember that I sued President Clinton when he went to war in Yugoslavia, without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. I've voted to defend our Constitution from legislation expanding the federal "commerce power" to invade the rights reserved to the states. Long before the US Supreme Court opinion in Heller, I publicly stated my belief that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not just the state's right to have a militia. In that vein, let us discuss what restraints on that personal right might be reasonable, and what might not.

Thank you,
Tom Campbell

Are these not identical responses to both Bill and dfletcher???

bwiese
10-15-2009, 6:22 PM
Are these not identical responses to both Bill and dfletcher???

Yup. But I did give him a detailed reply, just the same.

slowjonn
10-15-2009, 6:23 PM
Maybe he grabbed a knife out of the kitchen right before he was permanently incapacitated.

I hear that happens more than you would think.;)

gazzavc
10-15-2009, 6:23 PM
And just to add from another perspective the fact that having lived in England, a country which has chosen to ban the private ownership of almost all guns, and is now going through an increasing upsurge of violent robberies, assaults and murders due to the fact that the law abiding citizen cannot defend themself against the criminals. Mr Campbell, gun control is an abject failure and does not work

Thanks for taking the time to read this

Gary Archer

Bad Voodoo
10-15-2009, 6:26 PM
Do I really need to point out the irony here? The more they feel threatened by us, the more laws they'll make.

For the win!

wash
10-15-2009, 6:26 PM
Bottom line, you are still our enemy even if you hand us a token, fractionated right that we need to spend money beating expanding.

I think that's what you meant.

Mute
10-15-2009, 6:27 PM
Dear Mr. Campbell,

You've already heard our explanations as to why we so strongly oppose the type of legislation that CA's so-called law makers like to foist upon us. Instead of more explanations, I'd like to hear why you believe it's alright to make enjoying our civil rights a tortured, laborious exercise in bureaucratic overkill and tax dollar waste.

Let's just take AB962 for example. You believe that our rights must be balanced against the best interest of the public. Just what data do you have that would support the idea that such a law would indeed make the public safer? This kind of scheme is not new and in every location where I have seen it implemented, crime did not decrease. In fact, if lucky, the area didn't see an increase in crime.

We're not ignorant and we're not fools. If you're going to make some kind of rationalization for infringing on the rights of American citizens, then at least have the courtesy to try and show some evidence that support your misbegotten beliefs. So far, in this one area you are no different than every politician who proclaims that somehow they know better than us what is good for society. You make some grand proclamation as if it's the undisputed truth but you have absolutely no evidence to back up those claims. You have also failed to address any of the points many of the board members have made as to why you are wrong on every one of these gun control related issues.

Frankly, I've reach the end of my patience with politicians as a whole. From now on, I treat every one of them as an enemy until they have proven otherwise.

With all due respect,
Alex Tham

slowjonn
10-15-2009, 6:28 PM
The replies dfletcher and bwiese got is the same one I posted on page three. The canned responses and no follow up post by Mr. Campbell suggests he is not really interested in true dialogue.

Ding126
10-15-2009, 6:32 PM
Thank you Bill.

mofugly13
10-15-2009, 6:33 PM
Yup. But I did give him a detailed reply, just the same.

Both responses were very well put, by the way. I hope he actually reads, and considers them.

FWIW, count me in as one of those single issue voters who votes pro 2A.

Bad Voodoo
10-15-2009, 6:37 PM
Bottom line, after perusing this thread - Tom's not a (R). He's one of the thieves who obfuscated the party in the name of consensus "moderates!"

No thanks. I'm in the market for substantive conservative 2A representation, not more of the same old semantics.

Bad Voodoo
10-15-2009, 6:39 PM
The canned responses and no follow up post by Mr. Campbell suggests he is not really interested in true dialogue.

If you've met a 'modern' politician who is, let me know. And by the way... dialogue? Aren't these politicians supposed to be acting on the "will of the people?"

RRangel
10-15-2009, 6:44 PM
Bottom line, after perusing this thread - Tom's not a (R). He's one of the thieves who obfuscated the party in the name of consensus "moderates!"

No thanks. I'm in the market for substantive conservative 2A representation, not more of the same old semantics.

Actually, all you have to say is that he's not a real conservative, or even libertarian. There are certainly those in the R party who are not. Much like the gun banning left; as long as they get to be part of the exempted controlling oligarchy that's all that matters to them.

Bad Voodoo
10-15-2009, 6:51 PM
...as long as they get to be part of the exempted controlling oligarchy that's all that matters to them.

Well said. It's been a long time since party values meant anything at all, for (R)s and (D)s alike. Their goals have become selfish and self-centered - professional power and control, and the benefits that come with them. The will of the people and constitutional integrity are but footnotes in history to these clowns. If there is such a place as hell, I'm quite sure Lucifer is keeping a special corner warm just for them.

7x57
10-15-2009, 10:20 PM
Hey, have you ever considered running for office? I've been reading your posts over the last couple of years and your analysis is always so clear and supported by fact. I think you could do well, based on what I've heard from you.

The fact that his posts are clear and supported by fact appears to disqualify him from holding office in the first place. :chris:

7x57

7x57
10-15-2009, 10:29 PM
Well, will you believe me now when I say (and said...) that Tom's willing to listen to a well-reasoned argument on gun control issues?

Or let me put it this way: I'm giving your opinion of Jerry Brown the exact same amount of respect you gave my opinion of Tom Campbell.


This is ridiculous. The opinions of JB you are referring to are based on things JB has actually done, and those things are attested to by a wide swath of insiders. The fact that those insiders have very good reasons to keep quiet just means that if you think Bill and Gene and the others are liars, you can just go digging around yourself. It shouldn't be hard to figure out who to ask and how.

By contrast, your opinion is unsupported by a single thing TC has ever done, and contradicted by the man himself here on this board. His statement is essentially Obama's public gun-rights position: "I support the individual right, but any and all infringements are just okey-dokey with me."

There is a vast, vast difference between deeds, even if some are not too public, and no track record plus openly advocating violating the Constitution (which is what TC did, whether he knows it or not).

7x57

7x57
10-15-2009, 10:42 PM
Given the treatment they gave me over Mr. Campbell, I'm inclined to give their opinions _as much_ respect.


I suppose someone might as well point it out.

To be quite blunt, you ain't Bill or Gene. If there is no other information but track record to go on, they carry much, much more weight than you. Why? Because we have much more reason to trust their judgement.


They asked for outside verification of what I was saying. I feel I have the same justification, to ask for the same outside verification of facts of what they say about Jerry Brown.

If you want that, you have to actually do some work and ask the right people in the right (i.e. private) venue. If they trust you not to be stupid and quote them all over the internet, you'll probably get an earful.

I have--and the case for JB being pro-gun is actually better than Bill and Gene say. They just can't say everything they know.

And since I did a small bit of digging, now I can't either. But everything corroborates nicely, from different sources.

Quite the opposite of TC coming here and telling us how anti-gun he is. I admire his candor, but candor won't ensure my boys grow up more free.

7x57

chuckles48
10-16-2009, 9:55 AM
This is ridiculous. The opinions of JB you are referring to are based on things JB has actually done, and those things are attested to by a wide swath of insiders. The fact that those insiders have very good reasons to keep quiet just means that if you think Bill and Gene and the others are liars, you can just go digging around yourself. It shouldn't be hard to figure out who to ask and how.

By contrast, your opinion is unsupported by a single thing TC has ever done, and contradicted by the man himself here on this board. His statement is essentially Obama's public gun-rights position: "I support the individual right, but any and all infringements are just okey-dokey with me."

No, it's not ridiculous. But I will say that what you've just said is about the most ridiculous mis-statement of facts that one can get. Specifically:
- the opinions of JB are largely based on things that Jerry has _supposedly_ done that are not observable to the layman.
- when asked for specific, lay-observable actions, I'm referred to such goodies as "he assigned the 'B' team to a case'.
- when specific, non-friendly acts are cited to, I'm told, "oh, that's just politics".
- the "he's really friendly" assertions all come from the same small coterie of political insiders. TWO of them, to be specific. Nobody else is able to provide actual, testimony to this - it all traces back to those same two individuals.
- When specific data is asked for, I'm told "we have to keep that quiet for political purposes.
- In short, outside of Gene and Bill's assertions, there is _no_ outside verification. None. In point of fact, some of Gene and Bill's assertions are disprovable by those willing to bother looking. The assertion "The NRA loves Jerry Brown" falls on its face when one bothers to _actually look up_ Jerry's grade from the NRA. Which, in the 2006 AG race, was an F. Note that, prior to looking up that, it was asserted to me that he had an A rating. One can verify otherwise off the NRA PVF website:
http://www.nrapvf.org/ELECTIONS/State.aspx?y=2006&State=CA

Then we get to your assertions about Tom, and what I've said about him. What I've said is that he is the only viable republican candidate who is even willing to _listen_ to a discussion with the shooting community. Whitman and Poizner are lost causes. Tom - no, he's not gun friendly. He's willing to listen to a reasoned argument, as _I_ said he would, and as he's then said _personally_ he would. No more, no less.

Otherwise, he is what he is - fiscally conservative, socially moderate, a fairly strict constructionist (which I personally find hard to reconcile with his 2A stance, but I think that's more based on an Illinois upbringing than anything else - the legal/political community there seems to have some _very_ odd ideas about guns). Which, note _is_ supported by 20+ years of voting record...which is something that Jerry Brown has a hard time piecing together.

Frankly, what I'd prefer is to sit him, Gene, and Alan Gura down together, and let them discuss it. I seem to recall suggesting something like that to Bill several months ago, though it might have been the other direction, with my enthusiastic support.

What I find really funny is this:

There is a vast, vast difference between deeds, even if some are not too public, and no track record plus openly advocating violating the Constitution (which is what TC did, whether he knows it or not).

Counterbalanced with (a) Tom's 20+ year voting and writing record, and (b) Jerry's record of _not_ taking definitive positions. And I'm not the only person to note this, and it goes WAY back.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00012/
I love the Lorenz quote: “I sound tougher than Flournoy, and I haven’t proposed anything the liberals can criticize me for. In fact, I haven’t committed myself to do anything at all.” That was 40 years ago, and y'all _still_ haven't learned.
I, and others, have asked that the _same standard of scrutiny and conduct_ being asked of TC, be asked of Jerry Brown. And y'all laugh, because _two_ insiders_ tell us we're wrong. One of those same insiders ridiculed anything I had to say about Tom, even though _I've got more "inside" time with Tom than either of them have with Jerry_. And most of what I said about Tom has subsequently been proven correct. In contrast, we have Jerry's own positions countering portions of Gene and Bill's assertions - the "He's gun-friendly because he supported the Oakland Military Academy" one, for example, when there's equal evidence that that had much more to do with OMA being a charter school... and that Jerry likes charter schools, regardless of their political flavor (see his comments about wanting a charter school based on the Summerhill school model, in that same article).

What I find absolutely hilarious, in a macabre way, is that _I'm the only person bringing outside cites to this discussion to prove points_. The assertions about JB are _always_ unsupported. In contrast, some of the assertions y'all have made about TC are _specifically_ counterable by published material. That laughable bit of spin someone tried to perpetrate about the Patriot act, for example.

OK, bottom line time here. I want to see Jerry Brown subjected to the same standard of scrutiny that every other candidate is getting, no more, no less. I'm not willing to trust Gene and Bill's assertions about Jerry without clear outside evidence, which so far has not been forthcoming, any more than Bill was willing to trust my assertions (which I will again note for record have pretty much played out as I said they would) without outside evidence. I will also note that where non-2A assertions have been made about Tom's record, y'all have pretty consistently _mis_-stated things, which have been documented as wrong by outside evidence.

I think y'all are making pretty much the same set of mistakes that SHAEF intelligence did in Dec. 1944, and that we do a disservice to the defense of our 2A rights if we rely on scantily-sourced, unsupported assertions about one man's support for our views at such a critical time. Further, I think that we owe it to ourselves, and the preservation and protection of those rights, to ask hard questions of _all_ candidates, and that _no_ candidate deserves a bye from strict scrutiny.

chuckles48
10-16-2009, 9:59 AM
If you want that, you have to actually do some work and ask the right people in the right (i.e. private) venue. If they trust you not to be stupid and quote them all over the internet, you'll probably get an earful.

I have--and the case for JB being pro-gun is actually better than Bill and Gene say. They just can't say everything they know.

And since I did a small bit of digging, now I can't either. But everything corroborates nicely, from different sources.

Y'know, I find this amazing. Because I made several assertions about Tom, based on _exactly that same standard_ (you know, working with him, _sitting there and talking with the man_, that kind of thing), and was told that unless there was visible proof, what I asserted wasn't believable.

Fine. I'll dig. Suggestions on who I should talk to, specifically? Other than "the right people"?

dansgold
10-16-2009, 10:04 AM
Do we have any verification that the person posting here as "Tom Campbell" is actually Tom Campbell?

Some minimal 'net sophistication is called for.

Hopi
10-16-2009, 10:09 AM
Chuckles- You're defending a gun-grabber on a gun forum. Any more questions?


Coordinate the education meeting between TC and 'folks in the know', when TC is no longer a gun-grabber........get back to us.

KCM222
10-16-2009, 10:38 AM
Isn't the strongest argument for JB the fact that he requested that SCOTUS incorporate the second amendment? If TC also supports incorporation how do their positions differ?

What is known about JB's opinions on the questions asked of TC?

Midian
10-16-2009, 10:48 AM
Remember kids: Just because there's a (R) next so someone's name, or he claims to believe in Jayzus, or drives a pickup, doesn't mean he cares about your rights.

Break free of (D) and (R). They're the same hegemonic overlords of Not Caring About You.

Whiskey_Sauer
10-16-2009, 10:50 AM
Isn't the strongest argument for JB the fact that he requested that SCOTUS incorporate the second amendment? If TC also supports incorporation how do their positions differ?

What is known about JB's opinions on the questions asked of TC?

That's a pretty strong argument. Another strong but less tangible argument is that he essentially and quietly acquiesced on the whole OLL issue.

bigstick61
10-16-2009, 11:05 AM
I'd have to agree somewhat with chuckles. I really haven't see anything solid from JB that I can go by, and on other issues he has some pretty bad positions. He really should be asked the same sort of questions people have asked of Campbell.

bwiese
10-16-2009, 11:10 AM
I'd have to agree somewhat with chuckles. I really haven't see anything solid from JB that I can go by, and on other issues he has some pretty bad positions. He really should be asked the same sort of questions people have asked of Campbell.

Why do we have to poke our best guy in the ribs?

Did the CIA make Oleg Penkovsky march around the Kremlin with a US flag on his back?

bwiese
10-16-2009, 11:12 AM
Do we have any verification that the person posting here as "Tom Campbell" is actually Tom Campbell?

Some minimal 'net sophistication is called for.

There's some chance it might not be.
There's a fair chance it is at least someone is his campaign speaking for him.

The whole thing started when 'dfletcher' posted on TC's own webforum a query, and he replied there. The answers were posted & requoted here.

The style, cadence, phrasing and quality of writing indicate a sharp person, and the views expressed are entirely consistent with his past statements.

bwiese
10-16-2009, 11:17 AM
No, it's not ridiculous. But I will say that what you've just said is about the most ridiculous mis-statement of facts that one can get. Specifically:
- the opinions of JB are largely based on things that Jerry has _supposedly_ done that are not observable to the layman.


Many things are not apparent to laymen.


- the "he's really friendly" assertions all come from the same small coterie of political insiders. TWO of them, to be specific. Nobody else is able to provide actual, testimony to this - it all traces back to those same two individuals.

We are trying to indicate to folks that are smart enought to read between the lines that there's a substantial and friendly communications path for some time Other people won't talk about it because Rule 1 is to not embarass a friend.



- In short, outside of Gene and Bill's assertions, there is _no_ outside verification. None. In point of fact, some of Gene and Bill's assertions are disprovable by those willing to bother looking. The assertion "The NRA loves Jerry Brown" falls on its face when one bothers to _actually look up_ Jerry's grade from the NRA. Which, in the 2006 AG race, was an F.

Why would we want to embarass a friend who was already winning by a huge margin?

Also, that may not have been updated properly and may not have reflected sentiments of CA NRA.

I'm trying to ring churchbells in your ear and you still insist you're deaf.

bigstick61
10-16-2009, 11:19 AM
Why do we have to poke our best guy in the ribs?

Did the CIA make Oleg Penkovsky march around the Kremlin with a US flag on his back?

Without something solid, given his other positions he currently or historically has taken, there is absolutely no chance I will vote for him, that's why, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. If i'm going to get screwed in every other area, I'd like to at least know for certain that I'm going to get something out of it; otherwise, I have absolutely no incentive to vote for such a thing.

7x57
10-16-2009, 11:29 AM
Y'know, I find this amazing. Because I made several assertions about Tom, based on _exactly that same standard_ (you know, working with him, _sitting there and talking with the man_, that kind of thing), and was told that unless there was visible proof, what I asserted wasn't believable.


Unless you can show us where Jerry Brown logged into Calguns and posted the current talking points and underlying assumptions of the gun grabbers, or show that "Tom Campbell" is not Tom Campbell, this is nonsense. We got visible proof, and it was that there is hardly a major Infringment of the right he's not in favor of. He clearly believes in 'rational basis' scrutiny, for one thing, which is more or less the Brady's best hope at this point.


Fine. I'll dig. Suggestions on who I should talk to, specifically? Other than "the right people"?

I won't even talk about that on the open forum. Contact me privately and I might have some suggestions that would be OK to pass along, but understand that they're probably going to have to have reason to trust you not to spread it all around.

Being pro-gun is absolute suicide with the Democratic base. Why would you want proof that would sabotage his primary campaign? Might as well just support Gavin and be done with it.

7x57

doc1buc
10-16-2009, 11:41 AM
I hereby nominate Bwiese for Governor!

bwiese
10-16-2009, 11:54 AM
I hereby nominate Bwiese for Governor!

Don't vote for me, I'm a real arsehole.

donstarr
10-16-2009, 11:58 AM
Don't vote for me, I'm a real arsehole.

For some reason, this came to mind...

"Thanks, but I really couldn't afford the cut in pay."

7x57
10-16-2009, 12:05 PM
- the opinions of JB are largely based on things that Jerry has _supposedly_ done that are not observable to the layman.


Supposedly? Well, I suppose if you're ready to call Gene and Bill liars. They have quite direct reasons for what they say--they're just not willing to be explicit about them. If you don't trust them that far, you should also not trust them on the CGF board.

Non-CGF people say the same thing--specific things known first-hand by them, but not repeatable. So they try to get the information out in a way that doesn't destroy it's value. Would you rather they not try to quietly pass the word at all?


- when asked for specific, lay-observable actions, I'm referred to such goodies as "he assigned the 'B' team to a case'.


And a lot of other stuff, including the amicus. That amicus seems to have had more effect than I expected.


- when specific, non-friendly acts are cited to, I'm told, "oh, that's just politics".


This is known. Someone once explained certain details to me that they had witnessed, privately, and it's a fact. A private one, however.


- the "he's really friendly" assertions all come from the same small coterie of political insiders. TWO of them, to be specific. Nobody else is able to provide actual, testimony to this - it all traces back to those same two individuals.


Nope. I have tried to keep my ears open, and other sources having nothing to do with Gene and Bill completely corroborate the story. But they have no intention of sabotaging the 2A in California by satisfying curiosity, because they'd rather win.

Me, too.


- When specific data is asked for, I'm told "we have to keep that quiet for political purposes.
- In short, outside of Gene and Bill's assertions, there is _no_ outside verification. None.


Completely untrue. I did some outside verification. I tracked plenty down to others. But having done so, I am obliged to keep confidential what was given to me in confidence as well.

But I can tell you that the story is consistent no matter who the source is, and there is plenty positive about JB that (so far as I've noticed) Gene and Bill have *not* said, perhaps because they have different sources or perhaps because they thought it better not to even obliquely refer to them.

So your theory is basically that everyone who verifies the facts but honors confidentiality is part of some vast and rather pointless conspiracy?


In point of fact, some of Gene and Bill's assertions are disprovable by those willing to bother looking. The assertion "The NRA loves Jerry Brown" falls on its face when one bothers to _actually look up_ Jerry's grade from the NRA. Which, in the 2006 AG race, was an F.


Other sources indicate that your reasoning process is getting the wrong answer, however logical it may be.

I do not know how the ratings are decided. But if it was up to me, I'd give him an F if I saw him wearing a "three percenter" patch, so that "gun lobby support" couldn't hurt him. I want to win, and if that's what it took to protect friends behind enemy lines I'd not hesitate.


Then we get to your assertions about Tom, and what I've said about him. What I've said is that he is the only viable republican candidate who is even willing to _listen_ to a discussion with the shooting community.


It would be nice if you were correct on that. So far, however, we know he's willing to make statements but not have a conversation. To be fair, Calguns is probably not the place to have a conversation of the kind that would be useful. Best would be getting him in the same room as Gura or Kates, which I am certain we could arrange, or even Gene, who does a good lawyer imitation when he wants to.

But consider this--his statements so far indicate that he's not simply wrong on some things--he has an anti-gun *worldview*. He accepts the implicit assumptions of the Bradys and Sugarmans of the world. That's not so easy or so quick to change. I thought about posting a line-by-line analysis of what his underlying assumptions are, but I didn't because in fact I didn't think he'd ever see it nor is there much point in preaching to the choir here.


Whitman and Poizner are lost causes. Tom - no, he's not gun friendly. He's willing to listen to a reasoned argument, as _I_ said he would, and as he's then said _personally_ he would. No more, no less.


So how is that going to come about? Can you get him to actually have beers with someone with both the knowledge and the academic credentials to have that conversation? Because I don't see it happening right now.


Otherwise, he is what he is - fiscally conservative, socially moderate, a fairly strict constructionist (which I personally find hard to reconcile with his 2A stance, but I think that's more based on an Illinois upbringing than anything else - the legal/political community there seems to have some _very_ odd ideas about guns).


Be that as it may, I'm skeptical about his interpretive method, given that he seems to think that something in the neighborhood of 'rational basis' is some kind of appropriate scrutiny for a fundamental enumerated right. That's wrong without even dragging guns into the mix, and makes me concerned with everything else.


Frankly, what I'd prefer is to sit him, Gene, and Alan Gura down together, and let them discuss it. I seem to recall suggesting something like that to Bill several months ago, though it might have been the other direction, with my enthusiastic support.


That's apparently the only option, if you can make it happen. Even if he actually took part in the thread, Calguns is not a good venue for a technical discussion. Too much noise from the rest of us butting in with our two cents, for one thing.


Counterbalanced with (a) Tom's 20+ year voting and writing record, and (b) Jerry's record of _not_ taking definitive positions.


You still don't get it. We like JB being a quiet friend. If he took definitive positions, he'd either no longer be a friend or he'd no longer be in office. How much plainer can I state it?


I, and others, have asked that the _same standard of scrutiny and conduct_ being asked of TC, be asked of Jerry Brown.
And y'all laugh, because _two_ insiders_ tell us we're wrong.


No. Not two insiders. Two willing to post at least obliquely on CGN. There is a big, big difference.


One of those same insiders ridiculed anything I had to say about Tom, even though _I've got more "inside" time with Tom than either of them have with Jerry_.


I'm curious just how you know how much inside time anyone has with Jerry? Have you been checking his calendar?


And most of what I said about Tom has subsequently been proven correct.


You said Tom's positions were the same as the professional anti-gun lobby? Because that's what he says himself, and that's what you'd have had to say in order to be proven right. He repeats their talking points: individual right, reasonable restriction, everything is in practice reasonable, and rights depend on geographic location (in reality that's a code word for rights depending on whether they managed to get political traction in your area, but let that pass).

What more could the Brady's want?


What I find absolutely hilarious, in a macabre way, is that _I'm the only person bringing outside cites to this discussion to prove points_. The assertions about JB are _always_ unsupported. In contrast, some of the assertions y'all have made about TC are _specifically_ counterable by published material.


If you mean the NRA rating, that turns out to be irrelevant. But to some extent I think you're blinded by the fact that (1) you like Tom, and (2) you don't like not being told the sekrits.

I happen to share point (2), but in fact there are good reasons anyway.


OK, bottom line time here. I want to see Jerry Brown subjected to the same standard of scrutiny that every other candidate is getting, no more, no less.


Unnecessary, and as it happens quite harmful in the way you mean it. It's not smart to kill your goose to get all the gold out at once.


I'm not willing to trust Gene and Bill's assertions about Jerry without clear outside evidence,


Then at this point, you must be left to your folly. I told you it happens to all check out, with other people besides Gene and Bill, but of course that makes *me* part of the great anti-TC conspiracy.

Sorry. We want to win more than we want to soothe your ego.


we do a disservice to the defense of our 2A rights if we rely on scantily-sourced, unsupported assertions about one man's support for our views at such a critical time.


The support is neither scanty nor unsupported. You just don't know the details. That's all.

Unless you've got something more, I think all has been said that can be said.

7x57

wash
10-16-2009, 3:35 PM
I don't understand the point to this whole argument.

Is there anyone who thinks that Tom Campbell has any chance of winning the election?

I don't think he will be able to win the primary.

If we get gunnies to vote for a loser, we accomplish nothing and we let the anti's pick our next governor.

They might pick Jerry Brown any way but why leave it to them?

Beyond that, Campbell has told us straight to our face that he isn't on our side.

If he was even half way pro-gun, he would have said something like: In light of the Heller decision I will support regulations that can effectively reduce crime without burdening lawful gun owners with restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms and ammo that they can own.

All he's said is reasonable restrictions which is not what we want to hear.

Sgt Raven
10-16-2009, 3:58 PM
Blah, blah, blah...snip.....blah, blah, blah

It's real simple for me, Chuckie, I know Bill W and know he speaks the truth. I don't know you from Jake, but I know BW and GH and trust them. :rolleyes:

gazzavc
10-16-2009, 4:09 PM
Don't vote for me, I'm a real arsehole.

You say it like it's a bad thing............ :)

chuckles48
10-16-2009, 6:09 PM
Why do we have to poke our best guy in the ribs?

Did the CIA make Oleg Penkovsky march around the Kremlin with a US flag on his back?

Because some of us aren't convinced that he's an ally. Rule #29 of the Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates applies. Rule #9 may also apply.

chuckles48
10-16-2009, 6:30 PM
Supposedly? Well, I suppose if you're ready to call Gene and Bill liars. They have quite direct reasons for what they say--they're just not willing to be explicit about them. If you don't trust them that far, you should also not trust them on the CGF board.
Well, then that would be "what goes around, comes around." Being told I was a liar, when I cited publicly available doc....yeah, that was special.

But I'm not calling them liars. What I'm saying, that seems to be getting lost in the noise, is that Jerry has _always_ been good at being all things to all people. You'll note the quote I mentioned on that, direct from the horse's mouth. What I think is just as reasonable a deduction is that he's doing exactly the same thing this time 'round.

Or are you saying the duck has miraculously changed his colors?

Nope. I have tried to keep my ears open, and other sources having nothing to do with Gene and Bill completely corroborate the story. But they have no intention of sabotaging the 2A in California by satisfying curiosity, because they'd rather win.

Well, good for you. I've been keeping my ears open, too...and haven't heard anything that I could point at as a positive corroboration, in confidence or not.

Completely untrue. I did some outside verification. I tracked plenty down to others. But having done so, I am obliged to keep confidential what was given to me in confidence as well.

But I can tell you that the story is consistent no matter who the source is, and there is plenty positive about JB that (so far as I've noticed) Gene and Bill have *not* said, perhaps because they have different sources or perhaps because they thought it better not to even obliquely refer to them.

So your theory is basically that everyone who verifies the facts but honors confidentiality is part of some vast and rather pointless conspiracy?


No. Only that the only corroboration I've been able to find, ultimately tracks back to CGF. Which makes it pretty damned circular. I've yet to find anyone with outside, independent information.

I do not know how the ratings are decided. But if it was up to me, I'd give him an F if I saw him wearing a "three percenter" patch, so that "gun lobby support" couldn't hurt him. I want to win, and if that's what it took to protect friends behind enemy lines I'd not hesitate.

Riiiight. So unnamed, confidential sources that you can't cite to are to be believed, but an objective, rational, outside source is wrong.

I think you've just made really clear the logical basis of this entire discussion.

It would be nice if you were correct on that. So far, however, we know he's willing to make statements but not have a conversation. To be fair, Calguns is probably not the place to have a conversation of the kind that would be useful. Best would be getting him in the same room as Gura or Kates, which I am certain we could arrange, or even Gene, who does a good lawyer imitation when he wants to.

But consider this--his statements so far indicate that he's not simply wrong on some things--he has an anti-gun *worldview*. He accepts the implicit assumptions of the Bradys and Sugarmans of the world. That's not so easy or so quick to change. I thought about posting a line-by-line analysis of what his underlying assumptions are, but I didn't because in fact I didn't think he'd ever see it nor is there much point in preaching to the choir here.


Actually, what I'd like to see from Tom at this point is one of two things:
(a) one or more reasoned replies to some of the responses he garnered on here.
(b) a statement of what facts/logic/law he'd have to see that would change his mind.

And, as noted, a lot of people (me included) think sitting him down with Gene, Alan, and possibly Mr. Kates would probably make the most sense for all involved.

So how is that going to come about? Can you get him to actually have beers with someone with both the knowledge and the academic credentials to have that conversation? Because I don't see it happening right now.

Honestly, I'm not sure. I think making the open invitation is a good start, though. Sometimes it really does happen by happenstance, though.

I'm curious just how you know how much inside time anyone has with Jerry? Have you been checking his calendar?

No, actually I'm relying on Gene and Bill's assertions on the matter.


You said Tom's positions were the same as the professional anti-gun lobby? Because that's what he says himself, and that's what you'd have had to say in order to be proven right. He repeats their talking points: individual right, reasonable restriction, everything is in practice reasonable, and rights depend on geographic location (in reality that's a code word for rights depending on whether they managed to get political traction in your area, but let that pass).

Cute. No, but thank you for trying to put words into people's mouths. BTW, can you point me at a quote where Tom says that his positions are the same as the anti-gun lobby? Just one?

And yes, I've had issues with him in the past about some of his positions. He cited Cruikshank to me, for example, and I had to point out that the exact same decision also asserted that the 1st amendment was not an individual right. Got kinda quiet after that.

If you mean the NRA rating, that turns out to be irrelevant. The word you're looking for is "inconvenient".

But to some extent I think you're blinded by the fact that (1) you like Tom, and (2) you don't like not being told the sekrits.I happen to share point (2), but in fact there are good reasons anyway.

Ummm, if someone wants my vote, they can damn well explain themselves.

Then at this point, you must be left to your folly. I told you it happens to all check out, with other people besides Gene and Bill, but of course that makes *me* part of the great anti-TC conspiracy.

Sorry. We want to win more than we want to soothe your ego.


Ah, but at the same time, you want my vote.

Or to put it a little differently, Gene and Bill want my vote (and others) for Jerry. They've come right out and said so.

A very different, and very inconvenient, thing.

chuckles48
10-16-2009, 6:44 PM
Many things are not apparent to laymen.

You know, when I told y'all something similar about some of Tom's other policy positions (not 2A), I was told that I was FOS, that what I said was unbelievable, and that I couldn't know what I was talking about. Which was amusing, because everything I said was publicly documented, and available to anyone who would take the time to look.

So for you to pull that trope out... you might, I hope, understand why I would consider that to be a bit on the ridiculous side. I know it's unfair, but I'm trying to hold you to the same standard on this that you tried to hold me to. Which was, specifically, that he may have made friendly statements in private, but that public actions are what counts.

And while his incorporation brief (which DOES NOT mention any right to self defense, despite the spin attempted on here) is quite welcome, some more concrete action might be helpful convincing those who have a little less faith in Santa Claus.

Also, that may not have been updated properly and may not have reflected sentiments of CA NRA.

I'm trying to ring churchbells in your ear and you still insist you're deaf.

I'm reasonably certain that rating _came from_ CA NRA. Are you suggesting that CA NRA has radically changed their position on JB over the intervening 3 years? Or just that CA and the national office just plain don't talk, and that the national office effectively ignored CA's input in the matter.

Because that's the only ways I can read the complete disconnect between what you're asserting CA NRA's position on JB is, and what the documented national office position is.

Unless, of course, you have another, reasonable, explanation?

hoffmang
10-16-2009, 7:09 PM
Or to put it a little differently, Gene and Bill want my vote (and others) for Jerry. They've come right out and said so.


Not exactly. The reality is that he doesn't need your vote to win. However, if you're following along correctly with the actual facts we've been pointing out it looks like he's the only candidate that deserves your vote.

Riddle me this. Why did Mr. Brown file an Incorporation Amicus brief? Note that he was a friend of our side and not Chicago...

If you can answer that question honestly and seriously in a way that shows him to be on the other side, then maybe your skepticism is valid. Claiming that it was an attempt to undermine CGF cases is at best flip and at worst being intentionally obtuse.

-Gene

Foulball
10-16-2009, 9:22 PM
Please, for the love of all that is holy, please, please stop_breaking_your_sentences_up_with_dashes_and_/_or_underlined_spaces.
It does not add anything to your argument and is very distracting. I understand what you're saying, but when it comes out distracting it doesn't help.
Thank you.


- the opinions of JB are largely based on things that Jerry has _supposedly_ done that are not observable to the layman.
...
- In short, outside of Gene and Bill's assertions, there is _no_ outside verification.
...
The assertion "The NRA loves Jerry Brown" falls on its face when one bothers to _actually look up_ Jerry's grade from the NRA.
...
What I've said is that he is the only viable republican candidate who is even willing to _listen_ to a discussion with the shooting community.
He's willing to listen to a reasoned argument, as _I_ said he would, and as he's then said _personally_ he would.
...
the legal/political community there seems to have some _very_ odd ideas about guns). Which, note _is_ supported by 20+ years of voting record....
...
and (b) Jerry's record of _not_ taking definitive positions.
That was 40 years ago, and y'all _still_ haven't learned.
have asked that the _same standard of scrutiny and conduct_ being asked of TC, be asked of Jerry Brown.
And y'all laugh, because _two_ insiders_ tell us we're wrong.
even though _I've got more "inside" time with Tom than either of them have with Jerry_.
...
is that _I'm the only person bringing outside cites to this discussion to prove points_.
The assertions about JB are _always_ unsupported.
made about TC are _specifically_counterable by published material.
...
y'all have pretty consistently _mis_-stated things, which have been documented as wrong by outside evidence.
...
Further, I think that we owe it to ourselves, and the preservation and protection of those rights, to ask hard questions of _all_ candidates, and that _no_ candidate deserves a bye from strict scrutiny.

Sorry I just couldn't take it anymore.
:(

chuckles48
10-16-2009, 11:37 PM
Not exactly. The reality is that he doesn't need your vote to win. However, if you're following along correctly with the actual facts we've been pointing out it looks like he's the only candidate that deserves your vote.

Gene, I think I've already said my piece on this point. But, to reiterate: He's going to get my vote, unless Tom does a public about-face and is willing to accept real, serious implementation of an individual 2nd amendment right.

That doesn't mean that I trust him. As I've said, rule #29 applies.

Riddle me this. Why did Mr. Brown file an Incorporation Amicus brief? Note that he was a friend of our side and not Chicago...

If you can answer that question honestly and seriously in a way that shows him to be on the other side, then maybe your skepticism is valid. Claiming that it was an attempt to undermine CGF cases is at best flip and at worst being intentionally obtuse.

-Gene
I'll be honest, anything I say on that front would be guessing. But I think it has a great deal to do with his decentralist interests - which, for example, motivated his support for the Oakland Military Academy (which, note, is a charter school). And as I've noted previously, frankly the incorporation brief is the single biggest piece of evidence that I'm wrong.

My problems with the incorporation brief I've mentioned previously. First, it carefully omits any mention of the right of self-defense, which was a core purpose of the Heller holdings. Given that you're only talking about 3 words, I'm forced to the conclusion that the omission was intentional, not accidental. Second, including the whole section justifying the roster case as reasonable regulation is pointless. Frankly, the brief works just as well without that section. Yet it's there. Again, I'm forced to the conclusion that there is a purpose to that section, and the only rational conclusion I can come to on that is that the purpose is an attempt to get the roster declared a reasonable regulation as part of a putative McDonald brief. Finally, why is there a separate brief? Why file a separate brief at all, rather than signing on to the 33 state brief? Honestly, I've never been able to work out rational explanations for any of those points, and nobody here has ever been able to come up with a reasoned explanation.

So tellya what. I'll work on a reasoned answer to your question, if you'll chew on mine.

And by the way - thank you for the civil response.

hoffmang
10-17-2009, 9:52 AM
My problems with the incorporation brief I've mentioned previously. First, it carefully omits any mention of the right of self-defense, which was a core purpose of the Heller holdings. Given that you're only talking about 3 words, I'm forced to the conclusion that the omission was intentional, not accidental. You make a lot of his word choice. He clearly is saying that the core holding in Heller should be applied. Also, why go out of his way to point out that California has no state RKBA? The only reason to do so is to highlight the importance of incorporating the Second Amendment.

Second, including the whole section justifying the roster case as reasonable regulation is pointless.
Pure politics. LCAV gives him money. Here he can deflect their criticism. Remember his support base sure isn't us - though it probably should be.


Again, I'm forced to the conclusion that there is a purpose to that section, and the only rational conclusion I can come to on that is that the purpose is an attempt to get the roster declared a reasonable regulation as part of a putative McDonald brief.
That's not how SCOTUS litigation works. Nothing will be said about Peña in SCOTUS. At most it will probably work exactly the other way by warning the Heller 5 that the lack of scrutiny is a problem dealing with such things. Remember that the exact same case was just mooted in DC (where SCOTUS justices/clerks live and work). He probably helps us out in such a way that no anti gunner can say anything bad about. He certainly couldn't write "I've got to defend these stupid laws, can you make it easy for me to fold?" This is the second best. Both Mr. Brown and SCOTUS are smart enough to notice that Mr. Gura is on all three cases (including the mooted DC case.)

Finally, why is there a separate brief? Why file a separate brief at all, rather than signing on to the 33 state brief?
1. Vanity.
2. He believes.

Can you imagine the internal pressure in his organization to not be involved on our side of this? Have you also looked back to notice that California was not an anti-gun amicus in Heller? Mr. Brown was quite noticeably absent then. I think it's important that you in fact can't figure it out. I think the reason you can't figure it out is that you can't accept that Mr. Brown might actually be pro-gun. Would you agree that the other options aren't very logical from a political economy point o view.

-Gene

thebronze
05-09-2010, 12:44 PM
Tom Campbell can KMA. He'll NEVER get my vote. EVER.

CCWFacts
05-09-2010, 1:14 PM
Wow, thanks for posting that. I know someone I'll never vote for.

TempleKnight
05-13-2010, 7:23 PM
Campbell "represented" my district in the 90's when I lived in San Jose. His position on the private ownership of firearms has been consistant for as long as I can remember. He will bitterly cling to "collective rights" versus "individual rights" till the end of time. No SCOTUS decison will change his mind.

He pulled his online discussion from his website when his run for governor died, but it's been quoted elsewhere on Calguns. He is a true believer that only law enforcement needs firearms.

He would vote to reinstate the AWB; that's all I need to know.

GoodEyeSniper
05-13-2010, 8:07 PM
wow, does this guy even have a clue what he's talking about?