Please Read: New semi-auto "AW" initiative... Opinions Wanted!

[shopkeep]

OK guys first a little about myself:

I am a business owner in Sacramento and I've been a hardcore 2nd amendment activist in California for a long time now. I've started to gear up to put together a grassroots effort for a partial repeal on SB-23.

What I'm NOT doing is wasting your time, I do in fact have the legal resources to get the initiative written up and get the paperwork done with the Secretary of State to get the signature gathering started. What I don't have (yet) is the grassroots support neccessary to collect the signatures.

That's why I am asking you, my fellow pro-gun Californians for your feedback and opinion on the proposed initiative and your opinion as to whether the larger population of pro-gun voters would go for this. So here's a little Q&A to go around!

Q&A:

1. What do you mean a PARTIAL repeal?

What I mean is an effort to simply repeal the ban on pistol grips on center fire semi-auto rifles. The initiative DOES NOT repeal the ban on high capacity magazines, folding/telescoping stocks, or anything else (don't worry there's a good reason why).

2. Why only go after the Pistol Grips?

Because the section of SB-23 defining pistol grips is by far the most confusing and vaguely written part of the law. Take Hunt vs. Lockyer for instance where LEGAL m-96 rifles were confiscated because of lack of clarity on the definition.

3. No... seriously why go through all this effort for just one "evil feature"?

Please consider the overall strategy, one of the reasons the anti-gunners are so successful is because they chip away at different groups of pro-gunners. By going after only some groups of gun owners ("AW" owners or 50 cal owners) they can divide and conqueor.

This strategy is also the easiest strategy for the public at large to digest. I think instead of sweeping change such as the RKBA (which btw I will still put a 110% effort into as should everyone else) we should focus slipping one item past at a time. So this time we go for pistol grips... next time maybe folding stocks or hi-cap mags (personally I always thought 20 for an M1-A was stardard capacity *shrug*).

Anyhow please let me know what you think about this, and if there's any suggestions.

[PanzerAce]

hmm, the problem I have with that is that if the pistol grip thing is taken out, it might actually strengthen the position of the Antis, because they can point out how moderate they are, and how 'radical' we are. wereas if we go for the full repeal, and we lay out the careful arguments, etc, and they react normally, we can point out how moderate WE are being. and actually, a better idea would be to help with the RKBA petition (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=67). because truthfully, that seems to the anti gun within me (Im ashamed to admit I was once anti gun) to be less threatening. because it is only if you read all of the relevant laws, and procedures that you see that it is a massive pro gun bill. the average joe looking at it would think that it wont actually do anything to the situation.

Dont know if that made any sense, cause i have been up for 15+ hours. Bascially, go help with the RKBA :D

oops, just read the entire msg. you can disregard some of my post since I see you are still helping the RKBA, but I think the parts about how much people understand/are threatened by a law is still valid.

[shopkeep]

Now what would lead you to think that I'm not going to put in 110% for RKBA :D ? Back when there was the SB-23 hearing I put in 110% and back when there was recallthegovernor.org I put in 110%. My AW initiative is something that's not even going to go anywhere until the signature gathering stops on RKBA.

I'm just thinking ahead to what happens next. And I DEFINITELY agree with the language of RKBA being one that makes the antis seem extreme. Chances are they'll only go for the "Strict Scrutiny". Remember... SB-23 was Perata's baby and he's president Pro-Tem of the Senate so he'll definitely use his position to make plenty of noise.

[PanzerAce]

what led me to believe that was that I have been awake for way to damn long, and I read this before I noticed that you had posted on the RKBA.

[joel1316]

Anything is worth a try.....

[stealthmode]

full repeal or nothing why all the legal trickery thats playing their game.

[Mike Searson]

I do applaud your effort and will give whatever support I can.

However, my biggest pet peeve is when Gunny's (my term for folks like us who collect and shoot firearms) use the enemy's terminology.

There is no such thing as a "hicap"

"Standard Capacity Magazines" and "Restricted Capacity Magazines"

No such thing as an "Assault Weapon"

"Semi Automatic" or "Military Style".

An AR15 in a safe is a semiautomatic rifle that resembles a military rifle.
The Louisville slugger a gangbanger bashes a citizen's head in with is an "assault weapon".


Good luck!

[Rascal]

I don't see why this won't work. Look, the anti's have been doing this to us for years and it works. Why not do the same thing? It's like beating them at their own game.

[Bling Bling 2.0]

I think one of the reasons why we're in the mess we are in is because the public thinks the weapons we have are full auto. The anti's show pictures of evil looking rifles and if the view has ever seen any action movies, they imidiately make the connection. Almost anyone who sees my AW's asks me if they are full auto. The anti's have done a good job at making the "big mean gun" and I definitely agree that their strategy of chipping away with laws has created this mess.

The thing is, I care about AW's; but even if everyone on this board and all their friends and family signed the petition, we may have 200,000. But CA is over 30 million. Most of them are mindless liberals and soccer moms who don't care about pistol grips. They would vote no because they don't understand our interests and don't care enough to learn. They are going to side with whichever they feel is safer for them. And in their mind that means banning your guns, all of them.

I thought for sure the SF handgun ban would fail. But it won by a scary margin (if only a few points).

I hate to sound like a quiter, but honestly CA is a lost cause. We should be looking at amputating the state before the infection spreads to more critical area's like the 2nd amendment (of the US Consititution itself). I can see an America in 10 years where more American's will be in favor of repealing that amendment than keep it.

[PanzerAce]

I hate to sound like a quiter, but honestly CA is a lost cause. We should be looking at amputating the state before the infection spreads to more critical area's like the 2nd amendment (of the US Consititution itself). I can see an America in 10 years where more American's will be in favor of repealing that amendment than keep it.

The day that happens is the start of a VERY bloody civil war.

[lazyman]

I think one of the reasons why we're in the mess we are in is because the public thinks the weapons we have are full auto. The anti's show pictures of evil looking rifles and if the view has ever seen any action movies, they imidiately make the connection. Almost anyone who sees my AW's asks me if they are full auto. The anti's have done a good job at making the "big mean gun" and I definitely agree that their strategy of chipping away with laws has created this mess.

The thing is, I care about AW's; but even if everyone on this board and all their friends and family signed the petition, we may have 200,000. But CA is over 30 million. Most of them are mindless liberals and soccer moms who don't care about pistol grips. They would vote no because they don't understand our interests and don't care enough to learn. They are going to side with whichever they feel is safer for them. And in their mind that means banning your guns, all of them.

I thought for sure the SF handgun ban would fail. But it won by a scary margin (if only a few points).

I hate to sound like a quiter, but honestly CA is a lost cause. We should be looking at amputating the state before the infection spreads to more critical area's like the 2nd amendment (of the US Consititution itself). I can see an America in 10 years where more American's will be in favor of repealing that amendment than keep it.

I agree, semi-auto in rapid fire sounds automatic to an uninformed person. I have a friend who is a photo journalist and his knowledge of gun safety is that of a 2 year olds. I think the second amendment will be hear for a lot longer than ten years. All the mid-west and southern states are all God, guns and Rock & Roll.

[PanzerAce]

hmmm, other than the first part, that sounds good to me :D

[just4fun63]

I think we shoul hit them any way we can. If a law can be nullifyed because it is vauge ( vauge and ambiguous laws used to be illegal) we should try to get it thrown out. Take for instance the "safe handgun" law We could approach it from the tack of "why does a mechanical devise become unsafe when the fee runs out" once safe allways safe would be a good list, for now. Later work on getting rid of ti completly.

[Charliegone]

You should give it a try and try to convince an assembly member or senate member to propose it. Just imagine it. How can the anti-gunners be against such a reasonable idea!:rolleyes: Imagine if they did vote against it. They would look extreme. Its true, its time to fight back like they do or else we will get nowhere. Little by little they took our rights away, its time we, little by little start to get OUR rights back. I was thinking that instead of the one or more features, if we can make it two or more features it will at least be a step ahead. I'm not saying we should be conformed with that, it is a process. We should try everything in our power in trying to get everybit we can.

[mblat]

Just imagine it. How can the anti-gunners be against such a reasonable idea!:rolleyes: Imagine if they did vote against it. They would look extreme.

No it would not - nothing looks extreme anymore unless media covers it! After all we had candidate to governer who was member of MECHA and refuse to denounce it's views! Media didn't really cover it - so nobody cared.

And we can be shure that such vote would either won't be covered OR it will be spinned it some way.

[PanzerAce]

ah, but you see, we are mearly trying to make the laws easier to understand for the common folk! those who vote against it obviously would be in favor of highly vague and restrictive laws.

[artherd]

Not going to play well to the soccer moms, but we'll sign it! ;)

So, I say structure it like the fed ban was, change the feature count to two. BURY this somewhere deep in an un-related bill, with no fanfare about it.

[arvs1]

This is a great idea. I can live without the folding stock, flash suppressors, even 10 round magainzes, and etc. I think we should be able to have the pistol grip with detatchable magazines. When do you think you could get this initative out. I could possibly help, I might be able to gather around 10-30 signatures.

You need a website, get it up as soon as possible.

I don't think the 2nd amendment will ever die. When the big earthquake comes, all gun control in California will be gone forever.

[dwtt]

My suggestion: Change the word One to Two in the second sentence

"assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

Mentioning only the pistol grip is OK, though, but by changing the text to Two features, that gives us the regular M1A and SKS.

[shopkeep]

That is an incredibly great idea, it's right up the anti-gun movement's ally! Just changing one little word or one little idea to make this thing as vague as possible so I can put as much spin to it in as many directions as possible!

That really gives me the perfect illustration to show to people who might sign the petition:

FOCUS on the M1A and Yugo SKS (with grenade launcher) rather than the AR/AK that will become legal.

Do the Anti-gun dance and spin it like this:

"Many Californian gun owners found the ban to be obvious, but look at these poor individuals who may still own an SKS or M1A and can no longer register these firearms!"

Then show pictures of pre-ban SKS and M1A next to the post-ban to show how confusing it is.

Keep in mind though that I'm only moving forward with this initiative if RKBA fails. I'm 110% for RKBA and as long as it's on I will put 110% of my efforts there before possibly doing anything that might steal away from that initiative.

[PanzerAce]

actually, I think you might also want to go ahead with this any way, because the RKBA would send stuff to court first, whereas this would be immidiate. But yah, If we can use their own stuff against them (M1As, SKSs, and not mention the similar to AR stuff) then good for us. I really think that the problem with all the pro gun stuff in cali is that we HAVENT decended to their level, when in reality that is what works *shrugs*

[shopkeep]

I just realized a way to fully put the icing on the cake with this one. This is definitely an EXTREME measure and will likely be contrary to everything we stand for. But what if you did it this way:

#1 first reword the text to:

"assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any TWO of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

#2 also add a small gun control thing in there like changing the age to buy semi-auto detachable magazine centerfire rifles to 21.

#2 makes it _IMPOSSIBLE_ for them to reject it because it creates a TROJAN HORSE!!!! it hides a pro-gun law inside an anti-gun shell! That way anyone who says they oppose it says they're Pro-gun so therefore the anti-gun movement will HAVE to vote for it, this is how their logic works!

Is it somewhat of a defeat... ABSOLUTELY... but seriously it's a trade-off... you might have to wait 3 years longer to buy an AR-15 but at least you can HAVE ONE with this change in law.

Anyhow this is all talk and opinions here. This is just the most EXTREME idea I had so give me some feedback. Also I may be gaining access to someone in the CA Assembly to possibly take a look at this puppy in late 2006. I wanna make sure we do RKBA AND have this thing worded so it's a sure-sell.

Whatever you do when you write back don't flame, we're all on the same team. Let's just keep in mind we have to get creative here. My idea here is sort of a "last choice" type of strategy to keep us in the game. I had playing by their rules, but they're not really inclined to let us try to play by ours at this point in time.

[fun2none]

Given the current political climate, I do NOT see 12276.1 getting repealed. The gun phobes in the media would go into a frenzy saying how we wanted to legalize weapons of mass destruction. No politician would support it. The only snow-ball-chance-in-hell of this happening is if it were proposed as a revenue enhancement where the AW registry would be open to new registrations.

The new regulations call for a Special Weapons License (photo, thumbprint), gun safe certificate, and proof of liability insurance. The license costs $300/yr, plus a tax decal (like car tags) that must be affixed to each weapon, with an annual $50 use fee. And don't forget the 30-day waiting period and $75 DROS for AW registrations. The politicians would claim how they instituted the toughest gun laws in the country while generating revenue to help victims of gun violence and fund youth anti-gun programs. The law abiding citizens who really want to own a legal semi-auto rifle while need to open their checkbooks and make a contribution to the Golden State.

[shopkeep]

Actually not such a bad idea. Right now the state government needs all the revenue it can get... not bad at all.

I'll keep in mind how unconstitutional this idea is, but hell this is California so why not? If it was anywhere else we wouldn't be having conversations like this outside of cracking jokes :D

[shopkeep]

Actually that sounds like a whole seperate bill. One to re-open registration. I think I'll stick it out with what I'm working on right now.

Of course if you think mine doesn't have a chance how about AB448 that repeals SB-23 altogether?

I personally salute Jay LaSuer though for sticking his neck out with AB448.

If he can get it past the safety committee, which might I mention is chaired by that fruitcake Mark Leno who passed the California gay marriage bill, then I'll move to his district in San Diego out of respect.

[PanzerAce]

I say we repeal all of the AW stuff, and the "high capactiy" mag stuff, but add a tax (10%??) to the sale of such Items. truthfully, I would rather pay 10% extra and be able to buy a AR/AK than not be able to buy one at all. Then, as mentioned, you can mention how it increases revenue for the state. As for the idea of bumping it to 21: HELL NO!! swapping from one to two is not nearly enough for me to agree to that. Maybe if bumping it to 21 got a complete wipe of the AW and mag laws (and the .50) in the state, I could agree to it, but no fisking way the way you put it. We have lost enough rights as it is.

Edit: Ok, now that I have calmed down after reading that, I have a counter proposal. The basic Idea of a Trojan Horse bill seems sound to me (the bill that would have protected gun makers that the NRA killed because it would have extended the AWB comes to mind), I would still be VERY opposed to anything less than a massive clearing of the AW, .50, etc laws if it included a bump to 21. On the other hand, what could be done is introduce it as a money raising measure, you know, have some massive bill (REALLY long, less likely to be found/noticed) about raising tax money, but also about guns, maybe even a bump up to 21, but then, in one section, maybe a really short sentence in the middle of another paragraph saying something like: "This bill will further repeal the following laws: (all the ones we dont like)".

That way, it:
1) is a trojan horse, harder for people to vote against it
2) is hidden within the text. Therefore, a LOT harder to find it
3) Gets us all of our guns back, with the only restriction being that you have to wait 3 more years (I dont like it, but that would be *barely* acceptable)

[shopkeep]

Trust me I don't like it either, but after 1999 all we're seeing is anti-gun victory after victory. We _NEED_ a victory, however small it may be. People in the pro-gun camp are losing SERIOUS morale and a victory will help mobilize an offensive.

I am 110% for RKBA and I am also going to work as hard as possible to get AT LEAST 20,000 if not more signatures using all the resources available to me. But in the event that RKBA fails we need to continue to act, there's no time to hold back now.

I want to make sure this is a rock solid sell, why else would I be getting opinons from everyone possible. And I've thought of various strategies... sure I can get this thing endorsed by Bushmaster, Armalite, etc... but that would be shooting us in the foot. This is going to be a long haul and we'll need all the right people in the right places.

[PanzerAce]

I agree that we need a victory, but this would be a Pyrrhic victory in my opinion. While we may achieve a short term goal (pistol grips with detach mags), I honestly believe that the price in the end would be to high. Sure, it would be a victory, but in the end, we probaly could never get the age for rifles back down to 18. And since it is my opinion that you should be able to do whatever the hell you want once you are legally an adult (buy rifles, pistols, alcohol, etc) the idea of pushing the age back 3 years really does not appeal to me.

In summary, it would be, IMO, a Pyrrhic victory if that passed. (and for the record, I probaly would not support it)