PDA

View Full Version : What would the ACLU do about AB962?


WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 2:03 PM
If the ACLU (American Criminal Liberties Union) actually recognized that we had a 2nd Amendment, how would they react to the passage of AB962? Maybe we can learn from their techniques.

First of all, they would have been all over the news with FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), starting with the first day of passage. The ACLU would actually get favorable press time, as opposed to us mere mortals.

Secondly, they would get some lame judge to accept an injunction. This would prevent the implementation of the new law. Even though the law does not take effect until 2011, they probably would have come up with numerous inflated arguments for immediate action.

What ramifications of the new law would an injunction prevent?

1) Because our scared citizens will begin to stockpile massive quantities of ammunition, Firemen and Police will be at risk when responding to these homes.

2) Due to the heavy weight of these stockpiles, the state of CA will shift downward, thereby increasing flooding along the coast.

3) The health care facilities will be overwhelmed by the need for hernia operations for UPS, Fedex, and other shipping employees.

4) Gun stores will have less product to sell and the marginal ones will go belly up. Porn stores will replace these failed businesses.

5) Something about liberties & thumbprints & criminal access to sales data & loss of sales taxes & caravans to Las Vegas...



I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't feel very confident that some obscure shipping regulation is going to gut AB962. At best, it might negate a few of the restrictions.

Isn't there an alternative legal strategy available to us?

kf6tac
11-10-2009, 2:12 PM
Isn't there an alternative legal strategy available to us?

Until we get incorporation, probably not.

bodger
11-10-2009, 2:56 PM
Until we get incorporation, probably not.


Would incorporation have an impact on AB962? Since it's ammo, not guns?

bulgron
11-10-2009, 3:10 PM
Would incorporation have an impact on AB962? Since it's ammo, not guns?

It's clear from an originalists' point of view that ammo is protected by the 2A. After all, one of the reasons why we went to war with Britain way back when was because they kept coming around to confiscate our powder and ball ... you know, our ammo.

So, yeah, ammo is protected by the 2A. It's just that SCOTUS hasn't said so yet, and so the anti's get to play their little game. Assuming we continue to hold the majority on the court (and I get more nervous about that ever time I think about it), we ought to be able to squash the attempts to control ammo one of these days.

WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 3:22 PM
Our side waits patiently for good things to happen. The ACLU and other organizations make things happen now.

Can we learn something from them?

I'll put my own doubts about incorporation in another thread.

berto
11-10-2009, 3:47 PM
Our side waits patiently for good things to happen. The ACLU and other organizations make things happen now.

Can we learn something from them?

I'll put my own doubts about incorporation in another thread.

The ACLU has willing media partners and uses that access. We don't have the same level of access.

The ACLU goes to court, so do we.

7x57
11-10-2009, 4:01 PM
Our side waits patiently for good things to happen.

Are you *serious*? On Calguns?

7x57

WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 4:08 PM
Are you *serious*? On Calguns?

7x57

Okay. How's this? We usually play by the rules and only occasionally squeal like a little baby.

bwiese
11-10-2009, 4:09 PM
Ammo is, or will be, RKBA-protected. Ammo is the raison d'etre of gun ownership.

Antis focused on the guns, but when they saw we are winning, they moved their focus to ammo, thinking something 'disposable' might have less attention by us placed on it. But ammo is a key operating part of a functional firearm - just like a hammer, trigger, bolt or barrel.

I hate to tell folks this, but even with Heller incorporation, registration of guns and control of ammo sales is likely constitutional. Bans on amounts of ammunition (other than safe-storage/hazmat) and number of guns will not be supported.

In CA, we likely will always have DROS, etc. What we can move ahead on are on things like killing the Roster, one-new-handgun-per-month, and eliminating the waiting period on Nth-gun purchases given the background check is already performed at/near time of filing DROS.

We have to fight reg at the political, not court levels. Courts will likely allow/support registration administrivia issues - if anything, so the "militia" is "well-organized" ;) However, minor violations ultimately won't result in loss RKBA rights, etc: I don't see how failing to renew, say, an FOID card would result in loss of RBKA after robust incorporation. (Failing to renew is much different than not initially getting one, which might be supported.)

You will note we will be challenging AB962 not on RKBA grounds but practical Federal transport issues where FedGov occupies the complete space. Happily, that won't change. This country is too large and powerful to have every state nickel & dime every shipping company about various products and delivery methods.

The good news is such registration information on guns (or ammo, etc.) will not be useful in the future (if they can't take your guns, or stop you from getting more, the reg info ain't much good).

If every cop's MDT shows up "Owns gun(s)" on the record for just about every person or address he encounters, familiarity breeds contempt and it'll fade into the noise.

bwiese
11-10-2009, 4:17 PM
Another ultraright troll, BTW.

Yes, there are some things many don't like about the ACLU. But the ACLU has done some good.

Not everybody that's gone to jail is a criminal and is certainly not yet convicted, and they've helped out in these matters.

Some areas of the ACLU are in fact recognizing RKBA.

The government can trample on many rights, not just gun rights, and someone needs to stand up.

WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 4:50 PM
Bans on amounts of ammunition (other than safe-storage/hazmat) and number of guns will not be supported.

In CA, we likely will always have DROS, etc. What we can move ahead on are on things like killing the Roster, one-new-handgun-per-month, and eliminating the waiting period on Nth-gun purchases given the background check is already performed at/near time of filing DROS.

You will note we will be challenging AB962 not on RKBA grounds but practical Federal transport issues where FedGov occupies the complete space. Happily, that won't change. This country is too large and powerful to have every state nickel & dime every shipping company about various products and delivery methods.

I'm not sure why bans on amount of ammo will not take place. There are already limits on the amount of powder you can store. "Surely, no one needs more than 21 rounds because no one needs more than 2 ten round magazines plus a round in the chamber".

As I said in my original post, you're not likely to get all of AB962 tossed with your shipping laws.

WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 4:56 PM
Another ultraright troll, BTW.

Yes, there are some things many don't like about the ACLU. But the ACLU has done some good.

Not everybody that's gone to jail is a criminal and is certainly not yet convicted, and they've helped out in these matters.

Some areas of the ACLU are in fact recognizing RKBA.

The government can trample on many rights, not just gun rights, and someone needs to stand up.


Lighten up. Next time I'll add a :) to the definition of the ACLU. Yes, I know that at least once a year they end up on the right side of a legal argument.

My original point was that they do battle differently than we do. Some of their tactics have value. Our side is usually too proud to make use of their over-the-top tactics.

curtisfong
11-10-2009, 5:03 PM
Our side is usually too proud to make use of their over-the-top tactics.

Be careful when using the term "our". There are plenty of insane, attention whore, ratings driven, barely coherent, frothing at the mouth, hypocritical, sanctimonious "journalists" of all colors that absolutely depend on over-the-top antics for their paycheck. I'd like to think none of them represent "my" side.

bwiese
11-10-2009, 5:04 PM
I'm not sure why bans on amount of ammo will not take place. There are already limits on the amount of powder you can store.

When a right is well-nigh fundamental, those limits don't apply. Think of the number of laser printers you can own.

Somewhat legit firehazard issues for powder storage. There are likely limits on the amount of fuzer for toner refills you could have too, due to hazmat issues.

And eminently work-aroundable- schedule your powder deliveries to match your reloading schedule.




As I said in my original post, you're not likely to get all of AB962 tossed with your shipping laws.

We will. Real lawyers smarter than you or I think otherwise.

WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 5:11 PM
When a right is well-nigh fundamental, those limits don't apply. Think of the number of laser printers you can own.

Somewhat legit firehazard issues for powder storage. There are likely limits on the amount of fuzer for toner refills you could have too, due to hazmat issues.

And eminently work-aroundable- schedule your powder deliveries to match your reloading schedule.





We will. Real lawyers smarter than you or I think otherwise.

I hope you're right about limits. Smart people thought we'd have HG frame options in 2 weeks. Smart people thought we'd win incorporation in CA.

I don't even play a lawyer on TV.

Maestro Pistolero
11-10-2009, 5:15 PM
If the ACLU (American Criminal Liberties Union) actually recognized that we had a 2nd Amendment . . .

If a bull had tits . . . it would be a cow, unless you're in Nevada.

bwiese
11-10-2009, 5:43 PM
I hope you're right about limits. Smart people thought we'd have HG frame options in 2 weeks.]

We are electing not to do NeRFs to not screw with Sykes case.

If someone were to NeRF in spite of this (or violate the Roster in other ways) it is certainly defendable.

As it is, single-shot exemption works fine in the interim.

Smart people thought we'd win incorporation in CA.

Nordyke was held up because Chicago (McDonald) came up. We had a ball to run with (albeit stretched in some ways), but Chicago is better case, plus it will be argued by Heller's lawyer.

cbn620
11-10-2009, 5:57 PM
Another ultraright troll, BTW.

Yes, there are some things many don't like about the ACLU. But the ACLU has done some good.

Not everybody that's gone to jail is a criminal and is certainly not yet convicted, and they've helped out in these matters.

Some areas of the ACLU are in fact recognizing RKBA.

The government can trample on many rights, not just gun rights, and someone needs to stand up.

I absolutely 100% agree. I can't see how so many people continually slander the ACLU on the mere fact that their national branch hasn't come out to support the 2nd. They have done good work in other areas, and if only they would get on board in protecting our RKBA, in my opinion they would be golden. There is nothing inherently wrong with the organization in theory, and it would probably change a lot of traditionally anti-gun minds if the ACLU would totally come around. I am glad to see some branches coming out in favor of the RKBA and I can only hope as progress continues more of them do so.

I don't get the "they protect criminals" thing... They read all of the amendments literally, save for the second in some cases, and demand they be upheld to the letter of the law. Of course they don't always hit the nail on the head but at least they haven't, too my knowledge, done much if anything to legislate directly against the 2A.

IIRC, they continually take action when police do the neighborhood stops requesting to search peoples' houses for guns. They go door to door and distribute literature reminding people that they can and should inform the police that no warrant means no search. If they could just take a step further, as I fully expect them to do as the 2A becomes more and more credible with each political victory, gun owners in general will have a great ally in that it would be an organization that even more so reaches across the right-left divide and gains support from all liberty-loving people regardless of party.

Timberline
11-10-2009, 7:06 PM
Ammo is, or will be, RKBA-protected. Ammo is the raison d'etre of gun ownership.

Antis focused on the guns, but when they saw they are winning, they moved their focus to ammo, thinking something 'disposable' might have less attention by us placed on it. But ammo is a key operating part of a functional firearm - just like a hammer, trigger, bolt or barrel.

I hate to tell folks this, but even with Heller incorporation, registration of guns and control of ammo sales is likely constitutional. Bans on amounts of ammunition (other than safe-storage/hazmat) and number of guns will not be supported.

In CA, we likely will always have DROS, etc. What we can move ahead on are on things like killing the Roster, one-new-handgun-per-month, and eliminating the waiting period on Nth-gun purchases given the background check is already performed at/near time of filing DROS.

We have to fight reg at the political, not court levels. Courts will likely allow/support registration administrivia issues - if anything, so the "militia" is "well-organized" ;) However, minor violations ultimately won't result in loss RKBA rights, etc: I don't see how failing to renew, say, an FOID card would result in loss of RBKA after robust incorporation. (Failing to renew is much different than not initially getting one, which might be supported.)

You will note we will be challenging AB962 not on RKBA grounds but practical Federal transport issues where FedGov occupies the complete space. Happily, that won't change. This country is too large and powerful to have every state nickel & dime every shipping company about various products and delivery methods.

The good news is such registration information on guns (or ammo, etc.) will not be useful in the future (if they can't take your guns, or stop you from getting more, the reg info ain't much good).

If every cop's MDT shows up "Owns gun(s)" on the record for just about every person or address he encounters, familiarity breeds contempt and it'll fade into the noise.

Calm, sane, thoughtful, well-reasoned... thankfully this perspective is held by enough people who are in positions of influence and authority, and in positions to push back against unreasonable legislation such as AB962, that the nutter ultra-right fringe is balanced and countered. Posts like Bill's above remind me why I've contributed to CalGuns Foundation, and why I'll contribute again.

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has also received my money in the past, and will again in the future, as well. They do a very good job, and we're all are better off for it.

kcbrown
11-10-2009, 8:42 PM
Ammo is, or will be, RKBA-protected. Ammo is the raison d'etre of gun ownership.

Antis focused on the guns, but when they saw we are winning, they moved their focus to ammo, thinking something 'disposable' might have less attention by us placed on it. But ammo is a key operating part of a functional firearm - just like a hammer, trigger, bolt or barrel.


This is true, and any sensible person will recognize it as being true, but the Supreme Court may nevertheless rule on it differently than they did/would guns simply because ammunition is not mentioned explicitly by the Constitution, historical contexts notwithstanding.

Remember that this very same Court ruled against Eldred despite the excellent representation Eldred had, and as a result ruled as legal the continuous lengthening of copyright resulting in infinite copyright terms in practice. The court argued that an extension of limited duration is Constitutional, even if there are an infinite number of such extensions in the future, since at any point at time the length of copyright is "limited".

The bottom line is that the Court will rule whichever way it feels like, and will "substantiate" its ruling using whatever tortuous logic it likes.

Rob454
11-10-2009, 10:53 PM
Dude dont give those f*****s any ideas. jesus what is wrong with you

Maestro Pistolero
11-10-2009, 11:34 PM
This is true, and any sensible person will recognize it as being true, but the Supreme Court may nevertheless rule on it differently than they did/would guns simply because ammunition is not mentioned explicitly by the Constitution, historical contexts notwithstanding.

If, as the Heller court ruled, a trigger lock is unconstitutional because it makes the gun unusable "for immediate self defense", then an ammo ban will clearly be off the table.