PDA

View Full Version : Why did Trutanich support AB 962?


Creeping Incrementalism
11-17-2009, 7:16 PM
I recall that Trutanich was endorsed on this board for L.A. City Attorney, and yet after winning he supported AB 962. Does anyone have an explanation?

http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/local/northeast-edition/65617327.html

Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich said not only would the law prevent crimes, it would also help police solve them. He noted that casings left behind from shootings can be traced via the registry.

A former gang prosecutor, Trutanich said he keenly felt the need for the law.
I was in a park and I was shot at, and I can tell you now that keeping the ammo out of the hands of those nogoodniks who are hellbent on spreading violence is the way we solve crime and the way we stop it in this city.

AJAX22
11-17-2009, 7:21 PM
:lurk5:

gotgunz
11-17-2009, 7:36 PM
Turncoat?

Traitor?

Politician?


You pick..........

CABilly
11-17-2009, 7:36 PM
:lurk5:

Oh good, you brought enough to share :-)

Ducman
11-17-2009, 7:40 PM
Turncoat?

Traitor?

Politician?


You pick..........

this???

mofugly13
11-17-2009, 7:50 PM
I wondered the same thing in this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=231759&highlight=ab962), and and it was pretty much ignored. I'd love to hear what those who know have to say about it.

Centurion_D
11-17-2009, 8:24 PM
If it's true then he's a traitor to our cause.

SkatinJJ
11-17-2009, 8:31 PM
Has anyone sent an e-mail to him to ask?

JJ

mblat
11-17-2009, 8:31 PM
He is a politician. He already is running for governor..... at least in his mind. so he supports laws that he thinks will help him to get elected.

SkatinJJ
11-17-2009, 8:37 PM
I couldn't find an e-mail



CONTACT US:
MAIL:
The Office of the City Attorney
800 City Hall East
200 N. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

TELEPHONE:
(213) 978-8100

FAX:
(213) 978-8312

bodger
11-17-2009, 8:42 PM
He is a politician. He already is running for governor..... at least in his mind. so he supports laws that he thinks will help him to get elected.



That's probably the exact reason. Anti-gun equals votes in this state. In the heavily populated areas anyway.

Traitor.
Stuck his snout in the publicity trough with Little Kevin DeLeon when Arnie came to town for the big AB962 signing. Along with a gaggle of skanky strumpets from the Brady Bunch.

I often chuckle when I think how fast these idiots would be pro-gun if that's where the votes suddenly were.

AJAX22
11-17-2009, 8:51 PM
whoah... guys lets keep the brakes on the whole condemnation train until we know a bit more.

rtlltj
11-17-2009, 9:06 PM
Just like every other politician. What else is new? Every politician has their best interest in mind.

ScottB
11-17-2009, 9:11 PM
He is a politician. He already is running for governor..... at least in his mind. so he supports laws that he thinks will help him to get elected.

Exactly the kind of politician we do not need more of.

I have no use or respect for anyone who does not embrace identifiable principles and does not stand by them - win, lose or draw.

hoffmang
11-17-2009, 9:13 PM
LVKUBR0rsCk
I think he gets a signed copy of AB 962 at the 14 minute mark.

:inquis:

:popcorn: :lurk5:

-Gene

sholling
11-17-2009, 9:20 PM
Careful - I got slapped down for questioning if Jerry Brown just might do the same thing to us after he becomes governor and sets his sights on the White House. Must not question, must go on faith and accept the screwing you get afterwords with a smile.

BTW: I'm not saying don't support Jerry - I'm saying don't go into it blindly. After all there don't yet seem to be any better choices. He could easily bring us this same grief and a lot more.

PolishMike
11-17-2009, 9:22 PM
huh, i thought he was one of the good ones.

wash
11-17-2009, 10:08 PM
I think LA already has laws that are as restrictive as AB962.

So for a LA city attorney, AB962 has little effect locally.

Does that make any difference?

I always thought he was sleazy for representing the USC "student athletes" that are always getting in trouble (and getting paid) but I went to UCLA if that makes any difference.

This seems political to me. If he knows that AB962 is going down before it goes in to effect, what does he lose by "supporting" it? Or it could be political and he is willing to sell out.

Who knows?

nn3453
11-17-2009, 11:12 PM
This is the same Trutanich of Trutanich and Michel that Calguns/everyone says we should call in case there is a wrongful firearms related charge? What gives?

Beatone
11-17-2009, 11:45 PM
This is the same Trutanich of Trutanich and Michel that Calguns/everyone says we should call in case there is a wrongful firearms related charge? What gives?

I think we all want too know what gives. This is so wrong. :nono:

ke6guj
11-17-2009, 11:47 PM
This is the same Trutanich of Trutanich and Michel that Calguns/everyone says we should call in case there is a wrongful firearms related charge? What gives?Yes, it is the same Trutanich of the former Trutanich and Michel that we use to call. Now, we call on Michel and Assoc.

bigcalidave
11-18-2009, 12:06 AM
Guys, maybe he is building trust within enemy ranks in an effort to later have the influence to create or change laws in our favor!! We can hope, right?

It could happen...


Right?

7x57
11-18-2009, 1:12 AM
This is the same Trutanich of Trutanich and Michel that Calguns/everyone says we should call in case there is a wrongful firearms related charge? What gives?

While it's rather disappointing, I think there is some forgetfulness going on here.

What gives is that the go-to lawyer in LA was Chuck Michel, not Carmen Trutanich. Partners don't have to agree on everything, and in fact during the race Trutanich said he doesn't agree with Chuck on everything about guns. Perhaps everyone dismissed it as a convenience, but in what way is it not plausible that he was telling the truth?

Second, while most of us probably hoped for more, I distinctly recall the sales job was pretty modest. He ran against a committed gun-banner who basically ran his race against the NRA instead of Trutanich. What was said is that Trutanich would be a big improvement of Weiss (I think it was?--who cares, may men no longer speak your name), and that he'd listen to reason from his former partner long before Weiss would listen to the angel Gabriel himself if the NRA ended up suing LA. If the're going to lose, it's in their interests and ours both to settle instead of fight to the end (unless we want to set a precedent at a higher court, of course).

It won't take much to be better than Weiss.

And here's a question--did Trutanich spend any time lobbying for AB962 or just show up for photos after it was signed? If the latter, he may be playing rather slick but he hasn't hurt us yet. If he was lobbying Arnie, that would hurt. I don't know which, but it would be interesting to find out.

7x57

CalNRA
11-18-2009, 4:18 AM
when in Rome...

The guys is city attorney for LA, not AG of Nevada.

yellowfin
11-18-2009, 5:46 AM
I think it's like 7x57 says, that he's just showing up for the photo op afterwards to play both sides. What's the point of trying to unring a bell here? He's getting a free way to hug the morons in LA without really doing something to actively hurt us.

tenpercentfirearms
11-18-2009, 6:24 AM
My lawyer would be Jason Davis or Don Kilmer and I don't live in LA so what this big city attorney does currently doesn't bother me. He is just one more anti-gun politician. If he ever ran for office that does fall in my district, then this will be taken into consideration.

ilbob
11-18-2009, 6:49 AM
I recall that Trutanich was endorsed on this board for L.A. City Attorney, and yet after winning he supported AB 962. Does anyone have an explanation?

http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/local/northeast-edition/65617327.html

I have an explanation. He is the city attorney. He represents the city. The city wants this so he advocates for it, just like the attorney for any other entity would.

Beelzy
11-18-2009, 7:04 AM
Guys, maybe he is building trust within enemy ranks in an effort to later have the influence to create or change laws in our favor!! We can hope, right?

It could happen...


Right?

Too bad he is already using this tactic.....Against us.

He's a Turncoat.

Billy Jack
11-18-2009, 7:42 AM
I also agree with 7X57. Let's see how he handles firearm cases against the city. Eventually someone will grow a set and sue new Chief Beck over a CCW. Let us see how City Attorney Trutanich handles a case of that type.

He has gone on record as not wanting to waste taxpayer funds on cases the city can not win. If sued under the Stipulated Settlement and he does not advise the city to fold and follow the law you shall have your answer.

Everything I have read about Chief Beck says he is more politician that police officer. Let's see if he is smart enough to read and understand a Judicial Order. But in fairness, that is true of most Chiefs and Sheriffs.

I am willing to give Trutanich the benefit of the doubt.

Billy Jack
Oath Keeper
Patriot & Son of Liberty

Pvt. Cowboy
11-18-2009, 8:15 AM
when in Rome...

The guys is city attorney for LA, not AG of Nevada.

Heh.

The AG of Nevada is Catherine Cortez Masto, a female Democrat that dare not hyphenate her surname for fear of losing votes. She is one of 23 state AGs who petitioned US AG Holder that there's no need for a reinstated semi-auto ban (http://wethearmed.com/index.php?topic=4446.0).

bodger
11-18-2009, 8:40 AM
How about someone with excellent writing skills crafting a letter to Trutanich and asking him if he supports AB962 and would support and lobby for similar gun control legislation in the future.

Since he aligned himself with DeLeon at that signing ceremony, one wonders if he would support the next anti-gun legislation that is sure to come from Little Kevin.

I live in LA and would like nothing more than to sue the city over a CCW denial. I just don't have pockets deep enough to do it.

Billy Jack
11-18-2009, 9:11 AM
Deep pockets are not required but you have to have GC. A judge will not force them to issue a CCW just because they do not follow the law. They will still want to see a showing of GC under either the Stipulated Settlement or the 1974 AG Opinion.

If you feel you qualify under either, contact us.

Billy Jack
abillyjack@gmail.com
aclueseau@yahoo.com

www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

7x57
11-18-2009, 10:09 AM
How about someone with excellent writing skills crafting a letter to Trutanich and asking him if he supports AB962 and would support and lobby for similar gun control legislation in the future.


Oh, good. You mean forcing him to either take a position for us that will sink him next election or just make him an enemy now? Good show. Let's write the same letter to Jerry Brown and make sure he either is in a corner and has to act anti-gun or just gets destroyed in his own party before even being elected.

All those who decided to vote JB because of his quiet, back-room support of the 2A should apply a similar standard to Carmen Trutanich. If JB is pro-gun in spite of having given a public anti-gun speech simply because on that occasion someone backed him into a corner and he had to preserve his street cred in the CA Democratic party, why is this such a terrible betrayal on Trutanich's part?

So far as I know, which isn't far, the CA is under the thumb of the city council, while the AG is a Constitutional officer with a free hand inside his domain of responsibility. (Is that wrong? Enlighten me.) If so, I imagine Trutanich is going to have to do a *lot* more things because the anti-gun council directs him to. That's his job.

Our question is not whether he commits public suicide for us, or whether he defies his bosses, but how he exercises his discretion when he has it. And not so much whether he does what we would do, but whether he does significantly better for us than Jack Weiss (IIRC). It is almost unimaginable that he would not be an improvement on Jack Weiss.

One more thing--so far as I know, Trutanich did not come to us and ask for support. He doesn't owe us anything. We decided to back him because Weiss was a loathsome bit of roadkill on the Second Amendment highway. So what, precisely, has changed? And suppose we aren't happy with his performance--we have to consider what any replacement would be like. Probably more like Weiss than like Trutanich.

Our goals are modest here. I think we want to keep a close eye out, but so far nothing more.

7x57

Sarkoon
11-18-2009, 10:53 AM
Not intending to throw this thread completely off track, but I just read that Trutanich is also anti-legalization - http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/11/chronic_city_la_panels_reject.php

Maltese Falcon
11-18-2009, 11:07 AM
We decided to back him because Weiss was a loathsome bit of roadkill on the Second Amendment highway.

Yep... that was precisely why I donated $25 to the Trutanich Campaign...

As others mention, we will have to keep a close eye on how he functions in real time with real cases...

jdberger
11-18-2009, 11:15 AM
All here that donated to his campaign, volunteered or canvassed for his election based upon his 2A credentials, please say "Aye".....

bodger
11-18-2009, 11:20 AM
Oh, good. You mean forcing him to either take a position for us that will sink him next election or just make him an enemy now? Good show. Let's write the same letter to Jerry Brown and make sure he either is in a corner and has to act anti-gun or just gets destroyed in his own party before even being elected.

All those who decided to vote JB because of his quiet, back-room support of the 2A should apply a similar standard to Carmen Trutanich. If JB is pro-gun in spite of having given a public anti-gun speech simply because on that occasion someone backed him into a corner and he had to preserve his street cred in the CA Democratic party, why is this such a terrible betrayal on Trutanich's part?

So far as I know, which isn't far, the CA is under the thumb of the city council, while the AG is a Constitutional officer with a free hand inside his domain of responsibility. (Is that wrong? Enlighten me.) If so, I imagine Trutanich is going to have to do a *lot* more things because the anti-gun council directs him to. That's his job.

Our question is not whether he commits public suicide for us, or whether he defies his bosses, but how he exercises his discretion when he has it. And not so much whether he does what we would do, but whether he does significantly better for us than Jack Weiss (IIRC). It is almost unimaginable that he would not be an improvement on Jack Weiss.

One more thing--so far as I know, Trutanich did not come to us and ask for support. He doesn't owe us anything. We decided to back him because Weiss was a loathsome bit of roadkill on the Second Amendment highway. So what, precisely, has changed? And suppose we aren't happy with his performance--we have to consider what any replacement would be like. Probably more like Weiss than like Trutanich.

Our goals are modest here. I think we want to keep a close eye out, but so far nothing more.

7x57


You're right. I forgot the fact that quiet back-room support (or the appearance of and desperate hope for same) is what we settle for from CA politicians. We have little choice, a pro-gun candidate couldn't get elected to sweep the streets.

I was raised in a free state, still can't quite wrap my head around what amounts to fascism here in CA.

Dr Rockso
11-18-2009, 12:00 PM
You're right. I forgot the fact that quiet back-room support (or the appearance of and desperate hope for same) is what we settle for from CA politicians. We have little choice, a pro-gun candidate couldn't get elected to sweep the streets.
I think we settle for even less than that. Someone who is indifferent is leaps and bounds ahead of someone who is on a crusade to rid the world of guns.

Flopper
11-18-2009, 12:03 PM
Careful - I got slapped down for questioning if Jerry Brown just might do the same thing to us after he becomes governor and sets his sights on the White House.


That's hilarious.

JB would be completely wasting his time on another WH run. I know the Dems have had some questionable candidates over the last 30 years, but he'd never get the nomination.

Disclaimer: don't get me wrong, atm he sounds like the best pro-2A candidate for governor. He just has too many "crazy liberal" skeletons in his closet to be considered for national office.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 12:09 PM
While it's rather disappointing, I think there is some forgetfulness going on here.

What gives is that the go-to lawyer in LA was Chuck Michel, not Carmen Trutanich. Partners don't have to agree on everything, and in fact during the race Trutanich said he doesn't agree with Chuck on everything about guns. Perhaps everyone dismissed it as a convenience, but in what way is it not plausible that he was telling the truth?

Second, while most of us probably hoped for more, I distinctly recall the sales job was pretty modest. He ran against a committed gun-banner who basically ran his race against the NRA instead of Trutanich. What was said is that Trutanich would be a big improvement of Weiss (I think it was?--who cares, may men no longer speak your name), and that he'd listen to reason from his former partner long before Weiss would listen to the angel Gabriel himself if the NRA ended up suing LA. If the're going to lose, it's in their interests and ours both to settle instead of fight to the end (unless we want to set a precedent at a higher court, of course).

It won't take much to be better than Weiss.

And here's a question--did Trutanich spend any time lobbying for AB962 or just show up for photos after it was signed? If the latter, he may be playing rather slick but he hasn't hurt us yet. If he was lobbying Arnie, that would hurt. I don't know which, but it would be interesting to find out.


7x57 beat me to it.

Trutanich may indeed have differeing opinions on guns than the rest of us. Being Chuck Michel's (now former) partner does mean he has heard of all sorts of legal issues with CA gun laws and recognizes valid challenges.

He's quite a good lawyer, and is not a "to the bone" anti like Alison.
Which means he's also likely to see stupidity in enforcing non-law (LAPD Gun Unit, etc.) and he'll go by the letter of law not spirit.

Having ANY *rational*, by-the-book person in LA City Attorney Office is a WORLD above the odious Jack Weiss.

In his position, Carmen Trutanich will not hurt us and can only help us.
AB962 was a done deal by the time he stood by Schwarzenegger.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 12:13 PM
You're right. I forgot the fact that quiet back-room support (or the appearance of and desperate hope for same) is what we settle for from CA politicians. We have little choice, a pro-gun candidate couldn't get elected to sweep the streets.

A pro-gun candidate COULD get elected - but all the publicly declared pro-gun candidates in past are unelectable statewide for all the CA Repub. baggage they carry that stinks them up to a majority of Californians.

A personable, otherwise well-electable candidate in CA that espoused gunrights would not be terribly hampered and could win a statewide office. Gun issues are 7th to 9th down the list of concerns of general election voters.

sholling
11-18-2009, 12:14 PM
You're right. I forgot the fact that quiet back-room support (or the appearance of and desperate hope for same) is what we settle for from CA politicians. We have little choice, a pro-gun candidate couldn't get elected to sweep the streets.

I was raised in a free state, still can't quite wrap my head around what amounts to fascism here in CA.

I disagree. While the media is dominated by anties, the majority of Californian homes have a gun. The only reason that a Republican has zero chance of being elected to state wide office is because they long ago abandoned their principles and the public knows it. They run slates of RINOs and nobody trusts them anymore. Add to that the media's SOP of demonizing Republicans at every opportunity and you have a one-two punch. BUT that that doesn't mean that most Californians don't lean center right just like the rest of the country.

usctrojan
11-18-2009, 12:17 PM
A good thought to ponder:
If Trutanich's opposition won... what would have happened and what would our outlook be like?

bwiese
11-18-2009, 12:22 PM
I disagree. While the media is dominated by anties, the majority of Californian homes have a gun. The only reason that a Republican has zero chance of being elected to state wide office is because they long ago abandoned their principles and the public knows it.

Wrong. (And you're saying the Democrats still have principles?)

Until the CA R party changes its tune (or never talks about it) about abortion/choice and religious matters it will never get Other Than Rinos that have a chance of winning.

Those flaming issues driven by the OC faction/CA R party mgmt cause many people to flee the party, exceeding the number that fortify the party because of that.



BUT that that doesn't mean that most Californians don't lean center right just like the rest of the country.

Polls indicate otherwise.

The good news is that we can, over time, decouple guns from this.

I continually tell folks it's far easier to win a CA election with a candidate waving a bag of dead babies and an AK, than it is to be a "prolife"/proreligion candidate and antigun. Little Danny Lungren is such a perfect example of this I couldn't have created a better fictitious example.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 12:44 PM
Best spin?

Politics over principle....
.

Gun rights is all about politics.

"Principle" gives us that idiot Ron Paul voting against PLCAA.

Tell me Jack Weiss is better than someone that can be presented with
legitimate legal issues and who will be fair with *actual law*.

Win at all costs.

wash
11-18-2009, 12:51 PM
I still don't like "Nuch" but he will be better than Weiss.

Some things in life are going to suck either way and "Nuch" sucks less.

bodger
11-18-2009, 1:20 PM
I still don't like "Nuch" but he will be better than Weiss.

Some things in life are going to suck either way and "Nuch" sucks less.


It seems to always boil down to "sucks less" is our best choice when it comes to California politicians and their stance on 2A.

Like ten round mags and bullet buttons "suck less" than no EBRs at all.
But it still sucks.

Fjold
11-18-2009, 1:26 PM
Gun rights is all about politics.

"Principle" gives us that idiot Ron Paul voting against PLCAA.

Tell me Jack Weiss is better than someone that can be presented with
legitimate legal issues and who will be fair with *actual law*.

Win at all costs.

How do we know that CT is any better than Weiss?

The only gun issue that CT has involved himself with is exactly what Weiss would have done.

sholling
11-18-2009, 1:28 PM
Wrong. (And you're saying the Democrats still have principles?)
The same principles they have had since they were the pro-slavery party and later the Jim Crow law party, and finally the 'keep them down on the welfare plantation' party - the principle of accumulating and protecting power through building the power of government.

Until the CA R party changes its tune (or never talks about it) about abortion/choice and religious matters it will never get Other Than Rinos that have a chance of winning.

Those flaming issues driven by the OC faction/CA R party mgmt cause many people to flee the party, exceeding the number that fortify the party because of that.
I agree completely. Unfortunately gun owners are cheapskates. The antiabortion fanatics will donate buckets of money and knock on doors. Gun nuts on the other hand spend every dime on ammo and new toys. The elephant party goes where the money and volunteers are.

Polls indicate otherwise.
Polls can say anything that you want them to say. You also have to define left vs right. Like many in the Tea Party movement I define "right" as libertarian/constitutionalist. Not one flavor of statism vs the other flavor. Most Californians lean social libertarian and economic conservative.

Good viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

The good news is that we can, over time, decouple guns from this.
This is already happening.

I continually tell folks it's far easier to win a CA election with a candidate waving a bag of dead babies and an AK, than it is to be a "prolife"/proreligion candidate and antigun. Little Danny Lungren is such a perfect example of this I couldn't have created a better fictitious example.
100% correct. Gun Ban Dan is a statist pure and simple just like that darling of the national statists RINOs Rudy Giuliani.

wash
11-18-2009, 1:50 PM
How do we know that CT is any better than Weiss?

The only gun issue that CT has involved himself with is exactly what Weiss would have done.
I'm pretty sure he's better because we have a open line of communication with him.

If he gets too out of hand, Chuck will let him know. If things get really bad Chuck will let us know.

7x57
11-18-2009, 2:02 PM
I continually tell folks it's far easier to win a CA election with a candidate waving a bag of dead babies and an AK

I usually just let these things slide, but...is there any particular reason to put in any effort to win an election like that?

7x57

bwiese
11-18-2009, 2:06 PM
I usually just let these things slide, but...is there any particular reason to put in any effort to win an election like that?

7x57



Gunrights.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 2:08 PM
I'm pretty sure he's better because we have a open line of communication with him.

If he gets too out of hand, Chuck will let him know. If things get really bad Chuck will let us know.


Bingo. If he wants to tag on to already-passed legislation, fine.

7x57
11-18-2009, 2:21 PM
T
I agree completely. Unfortunately gun owners are cheapskates. The antiabortion fanatics will donate buckets of money and knock on doors. Gun nuts on the other hand spend every dime on ammo and new toys. The elephant party goes where the money and volunteers are.


I've also said this, about gun owners and about "libertarians" (defined however you want). So here's a question--how many would prove me wrong if, at some future date, I named a California pro-gun candidate who could use money and boots on the ground? That might happen, someday...but would there even be a point in doing so?

My concern has always been that going after gun-rights votes, even quietly, may get a few votes but not the money, time, and energy that create the critical "force multiplier."


100% correct. Gun Ban Dan is a statist pure and simple just like that darling of the national statists RINOs Rudy Giuliani.

The sad thing is that Rudy is an absolutely superb speechmaker. One of the best, I'd say.

7x57

nicki
11-18-2009, 2:34 PM
also agree with 7X57. Let's see how he handles firearm cases against the city. Eventually someone will grow a set and sue new Chief Beck over a CCW. Let us see how City Attorney Trutanich handles a case of that type.

He has gone on record as not wanting to waste taxpayer funds on cases the city can not win. If sued under the Stipulated Settlement and he does not advise the city to fold and follow the law you shall have your answer.

Everything I have read about Chief Beck says he is more politician that police officer. Let's see if he is smart enough to read and understand a Judicial Order. But in fairness, that is true of most Chiefs and Sheriffs.

I am willing to give Trutanich the benefit of the doubt.

Billy Jack
Oath Keeper
Patriot & Son of Liberty


AB 962 wasn't about making effective policy, it was an attempt to show the people of LA and other crime ridden areas that their politicians are trying to do something.

It was an emotional bill and it was one that was going to pass anyway regardless of what the LA city attorney does.

What will count is how gun cases are handled in LA, especially BS cases against people like us, or compliance with court orders which Billy Jack just posted.

Billy Jack wouldn't have made the above post unless he is ready to strike and something tells me, that is exactly what he is going to do.

What happens with LA CCW, UOC, OLL cases will show us Trutanich's real colors.

His support of AB962 may give him the political cover to do the right thing on other issues.

His actions will speak for themselves.

Nicki

boxbro
11-18-2009, 3:09 PM
"Principle" gives us that idiot Ron Paul voting against PLCAA.

Ron Paul is perhaps the only politician that truly stands for freedom, especially freedom from an oppressive federal government.
He is perhaps the most intelligent politician as well.
To call him an idiot is just plain unwarranted.
Here's his take on why he voted against it:

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 9, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it.

It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.

While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval of the very nature of these suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully, and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by a criminal who stole the weapon). Clearly these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice, but by a search for deep pockets and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.

However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that guns, which are inanimate objects, are somehow responsible for crimes. HR 1036 shifts the focus away from criminals and their responsibility for their actions. It adds to the cult of irresponsibility that government unfortunately so often promotes. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one's own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to commit a crime, such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, or baseball bats. Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not – the implications are preposterous.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.

In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 3:20 PM
Ron Paul is perhaps the only politician that truly stands for freedom, especially freedom from an oppressive federal government.
He is perhaps the most intelligent politician as well.
To call him an idiot is just plain unwarranted.
Here's his take on why he voted against it:

Your stance on RP is based on a religious belief in him.

Paul's take on PLCAA irrelevant and stupid. My criticism remains unrebutted, and is correct.

At that time there was no Heller, nor incorporation in the offing. If PLCAA failed, some major gun companies would have gone under within 2 years due to BS lawsuits. You don't have a good gunrights environment when you don't have good gun commerce.

"Purity" equals stupidity when immediate action was required. Paul's date of absolute purity in constitutionality is coming when? What century?

Paul's stance was like that of a field goal kicker declining to play/kick because he felt the ball should really be run, in spite of what coaching says.

M. D. Van Norman
11-18-2009, 3:42 PM
Ive come to the conclusion that politics are largely irrelevant now, unless the Democratic Party ever becomes smart enough to take the pro-gun vote away from the Republicans. We will win the RKBA fight in the courts or lose it in bloody violence.

WeThePeople
11-18-2009, 3:43 PM
Your stance on RP is based on a religious belief in him.

Paul's take on PLCAA irrelevant and stupid. My criticism remains unrebutted, and is correct.

At that time there was no Heller, nor incorporation in the offing. If PLCAA failed, some major gun companies would have gone under within 2 years due to BS lawsuits. You don't have a good gunrights environment when you don't have good gun commerce.

"Purity" equals stupidity when immediate action was required. Paul's date of absolute purity in constitutionality is coming when? What century?

Paul's stance was like that of a field goal kicker declining to play/kick because he felt the ball should really be run, in spite of what coaching says.

Did Ron Paul's vote cause the PLCAA vote to fail? No. It passed anyway. Move on.

Don't we all make mistakes?

I remember my first post on CG. I tried to convince you that you had a bad idea. You were trying to convince the media in CA to pressure the goverment to close off OLLs because you said everyone that wanted one already had one. Aren't you glad you failed in your quest?

Do you remember telling everyone to vote for Arnold instead of Tom McClintock? How did that turn out for you?

boxbro
11-18-2009, 3:50 PM
Your stance on RP is based on a religious belief in him.

Religion has nothing to do with it, I am agnostic.
Freedom has everything to do with it.
Honesty in politics has everything to do with it.
Having the balls to say what I have been feeling for decades has everything to do with it.
He is the only politician I know that would stand up against the feds and for states rights.
He is the only politician I know that would stand up against the IRS and unconstitutional income taxes.
He is the only politician I know that would stand up the mighty for profit Federal Reserve.
He is the only politician that appears to refuse to be a puppet.

Paul's take on PLCAA irrelevant and stupid. My criticism remains unrebutted, and is correct.

There's absolutely nothing stupid about it.
He against all federal gun laws.
I'm not sure how you could ever call that stupid.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

At that time there was no Heller, nor incorporation in the offing. If PLCAA failed, some major gun companies would have gone under within 2 years due to BS lawsuits. You don't have a good gunrights environment when you don't have good gun commerce.

That's speculation on your part, you can't possibly prove what would have happened.

"Purity" equals stupidity when immediate action was required. Paul's date of absolute purity in constitutionality is coming when? What century?

Why is purity in quotes ?
Is that something Ron Paul said ?

Paul's stance was like that of a field goal kicker declining to play/kick because he felt the ball should really be run, in spite of what coaching says.

That is a horrible analogy and I am not even going to attempt to counter it.
The feds have no genuine constitutional authority except under the greatly abused commerce clause.

jdberger
11-18-2009, 3:52 PM
Did Ron Paul's vote cause the PLCAA vote to fail? No. It passed anyway. Move on.

Don't we all make mistakes?

I remember my first post on CG. I tried to convince you that you had a bad idea. You were trying to convince the media in CA to pressure the goverment to close off OLLs because you said everyone that wanted one already had one. Aren't you glad you failed in your quest?

Do you remember telling everyone to vote for Arnold instead of Tom McClintock? How did that turn out for you?

Given the circumstances at the time, pushing the AG to name rifles was a great idea. How many OLL makers were there then? And how many now. We'd have tied Lockyer in knots, and made him look like an incompetent idiot to the voters.

And McClintock? If we'd all voted for McClintock, you'd be living through Bustamonte's second term, not Arnie's.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 4:06 PM
Did Ron Paul's vote cause the PLCAA vote to fail? No. It passed anyway. Move on.

If it had been the one vote that caused it to fail and RP kept touting his "pro-gun" stance, that would've been disastrous.

I don't like people using the pro-gun mantra



I remember my first post on CG. I tried to convince you that you had a bad idea. You were trying to convince the media in CA to pressure the goverment to close off OLLs because you said everyone that wanted one already had one.

We figured that we'd have a couple of months before listing, and thought DOJ was just taking its sweet time. Then they tried the Category 4 BS, which we killed.

We thought we could get a few batches of folks to sequentially get batches of full-house AWs.

And we figured Stag-16, Stag-17, ... Stag-N would work out nicely :)

Aren't you glad you failed in your quest?

Even if we succeeded the we could have had more OLLs.

But AB2728 came along and succeeded beyond our wildest dreams - it actually froze the list and offered reduced penalties, along with some other as-of-yet unspent "ammo".

Do you remember telling everyone to vote for Arnold instead of Tom McClintock? How did that turn out for you?

Fairly nicely, overall. Because McClintock could not beat Cruz Bustamente.

Glock22Fan
11-18-2009, 5:03 PM
How do we know that CT is any better than Weiss?

The only gun issue that CT has involved himself with is exactly what Weiss would have done.

We do know that Weiss has been, and would continue to be, on the far wrong side of every issue we care about. How can CT be worse? Statistically, i think there's no way. With CT there's hope, with Weiss, fuggedaboutit.

xrMike
11-18-2009, 5:11 PM
Fairly nicely, overall. Because McClintock could not beat Cruz Bustamente.Reminds me of how you kept telling us that Ron Paul was a "wasted" vote, when in fact, McCain could not beat Barry either...

I still voted for him. :p

7x57
11-18-2009, 5:20 PM
Reminds me of how you kept telling us that Ron Paul was a "wasted" vote, when in fact, McCain could not beat Barry either...

I still voted for him. :p

Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would have come within about the percentage of Republicans that were disgusted and stayed home? The biggest secret of the campaign was that Obama was a very weak candidate who always ran behind his party in the polls. A generic Democrat was indeed unbeatable, but the poll numbers showed that Obama was in fact beatable.

People insist that no matter how dim the prospect we should fight for everything the 2A means, but they roll over and quit in a tough election. Go tell it to Harry Truman.

7x57

xrMike
11-18-2009, 7:11 PM
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would have come within about the percentage of Republicans that were disgusted and stayed home?

Nope, and I can't speak to that because I have no idea what that % is.

The biggest secret of the campaign was that Obama was a very weak candidate who always ran behind his party in the polls. A generic Democrat was indeed unbeatable, but the poll numbers showed that Obama was in fact beatable.

I think a more accurate statement would be: No Republican could have possibly won, not here in California. Regardless of WHO the Dem was. The state has tipped too far left. Or at least the 2 major population centers have. A vote for McCain (or any other Republican), now that was your wasted vote. And if I'm going to waste my vote on some Republican clown I don't like who has absolute ZERO chance of winning ANY of California's 55 electoral votes, I might as well "waste" it on the guy I really want -- Ron Paul.

People insist that no matter how dim the prospect we should fight for everything the 2A means, but they roll over and quit in a tough election. Go tell it to Harry Truman.I agree, if you opted out of the process entirely because you were fed up, you f'd up, because the only truly wasted vote is the one not cast.