PDA

View Full Version : CGF - in the news - AGAIN!


oaklander
12-24-2009, 12:43 AM
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1342630

Hot off the press (complete with a great quote from Gene):

(Note - what is interesting is that members of the press are now SEEKING OUT the CGF when they need to get facts about gun issues. This is pretty amazing PR, especially when you consider that we have a ZERO PR budget!)


Bites

Second guessing

Does the Second Amendment—the right to bear arms—apply to state and local governments? Bites’ first reaction to the question is, “Well, duh.” Sure, the second is not Bites’ favorite amendment. But it is part of the package we call the Bill of Rights—which, like background radiation and Jesus’ love, is always all around us. Right?

Wrong, according to the Sacramento City Council. The council voted last week to take sides in McDonald v. Chicago, a major gun-rights case which will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court next year, and to argue that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the city of Sacramento, or to the state of California or, really, anywhere else outside of Washington, D.C. and a few other federal enclaves.

Several other cities, including Oakland, Los Angeles and San Francisco are expected join in an amicus brief in the case, which started as a lawsuit against a Chicago handgun ban. Councilman Kevin McCarty requested that Sacramento join the fray, worried that the case could undermine local gun laws, a couple of which he sponsored.

The council voted 7-2 to join the brief, with Robbie Waters and Kevin Johnson voting against.

Bites should congratulate the council for taking this vote in public. In the past, the council has kept all discussion of controversial amicus briefs private—arguing, wrongly, that these are legal matters and exempt from public hearing. Particularly galling was a decision to hold a secret vote to join an amicus brief supporting San Francisco in the California Supreme Court case that temporarily legalized gay marriage in the state. Glad to see the council has finally figured out that it really ought to make its largely symbolic political points in public.

Unfortunately, last week’s council discussion left out many of the interesting elements of the McDonald case. It’s only by historic accident that the Supreme Court has not yet considered extending the Second Amendment to the states, says Assistant City Attorney Matt Ruyak. Thanks to the post-Civil War 14th Amendment and decades of Supreme Court decisions after, it has been pretty well-established that statehouses and city halls can’t make laws that violate our rights to free speech, or a jury trial, or due process, among other rights.

The court last year threw out a strict handgun law in Washington, D.C. But that’s federal jurisdiction, and it still left gun rights’ local status in limbo. “They have kicked this can down the road a very long way,” Ruyak told Bites, noting that the Third Amendment protection against quartering soldiers in peacetime hasn’t been extended to the states either. Go figure.
Before last week’s vote, Councilman McCarty understandably tried to steer the conversation away from Con Law 101. “The question really is whether cities should have the right to craft policies to make their cities safer,” said McCarty.

But it is a little ironic to see big city liberals suddenly taking up a states’ rights argument, noted Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, a Northern California gun-rights organization. “It mirrors exactly what the racist Confederates said in the South for years,” he told Bites.

McCarty’s obviously no Dixiecrat. But this case has been unpredictably divisive. California attorney general and occasional left-winger Jerry Brown has taken the other side in McDonald, arguing that “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.”

Which really wouldn’t bother Bites so much. But having to quarter troops in the Bitescave would be a real drag.

NiteQwill
12-24-2009, 12:47 AM
:D :D :D

bigcalidave
12-24-2009, 12:55 AM
Ooh great quote :)

NSR500
12-24-2009, 1:00 AM
w00t!

AndrewMendez
12-24-2009, 2:02 AM
Thanks Oak!

bballwizard05
12-24-2009, 2:25 AM
sweet, good work. california is stupid

artherd
12-24-2009, 4:16 AM
bow down.

geeknow
12-24-2009, 5:24 AM
Oaklander,

Good to see that CGN is being sought out as a credible resource from without. This would not have happened were it not for the efforts that you, and the rest of the 'right people' have put forth. Thank you, all.

You guys make us all look smarter.

Likely, if you didnt have all of our 'mental muscle' tied up in the 2A effort, this board would be full of "look what else tannerite can do", and "who's got the blingy-est holster" threads.....which do have their own merits :p

Thanks again, and Merry Christmas!

g

Mulay El Raisuli
12-24-2009, 5:32 AM
bow down.


Yes. Clearly, we're not worthy. :)


The Raisuli

r08ert209cali
12-24-2009, 5:51 AM
:King:

cdtx2001
12-24-2009, 6:22 AM
Great article.

It's nice to know others can see the bigger picture. It's not just about the RKBA, it's about the entire Bill of Rights.

PonchoTA
12-24-2009, 6:55 AM
CGF is the awesomeness! :yes:

.

vantec08
12-24-2009, 6:58 AM
wow . .. . good stuff. who knows, maybe the Castle Doctrine .. . ..

Swatter911
12-24-2009, 8:35 AM
Nicely stated. I hope Gene's comment made 7 councilmembers pause in reflection.

BigDogatPlay
12-24-2009, 8:44 AM
I doubt that most of the seven honorable councilmembers even care. If it sinks in with one or two, thats a win IMO.

This is about the whole Bill of Rights, absolutely. And we can win the rhetorical battle by continuing to drag out the bloody cape of exactly what it is that their position in the law is based on... racism and the furtherance of seperate but equal. Jim Crow, pure and plain.

Offending the sensibilities of the anti's with the two faced fallacy of their position will make them back away. That and competent litigation. Messrs. Gura, Kilmer, Kates, Michel and so many others are seeing to the litigation.

It is up to all of us to continue to show the anti's where their "logic" falls down.

bodger
12-24-2009, 9:12 AM
Nicely stated. I hope Gene's comment made 7 councilmembers pause in reflection.

Yeah, and run off in all directions to brush up on their history so they knew WTF he was talking about.
That hits them where it hurts, putting their nose in the fact that their position on this aligns them with the racism of the Confederate south of old.

Good stuff! Thanks!

SIGscout
12-24-2009, 9:45 AM
One small Victory for cal guns, yes. I am still concerned that the majority of our government wants to remove the choice to not be a victim and/or our ability to pursue enjoyable sports and such.

I am not great with words, but perhaps those two council members that stood up for our rights will send a message to those who would take away all of our freedoms. Almost to the point to where we are living in a 'cage' of sorts.

Oh you can't do this cant do that. When criminals do it and take a life of somebody we love, or take what we work hard for we are supposed to accept it as a loss? Just shrug our shoulders and say 'oh well must be our fault'?

Should make fire extinguishers illeagle too...ffs

Anyway, thanks CGF for making a difference:)

Dirk Tungsten
12-24-2009, 10:25 AM
Sweet job getting that Hoffman quote in there. Interesting that the reporter is barely willing to acknowledge the broader implications for the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I may have to pick up that issue of the News and Review just to see this in print, even though it's a horrible paper. Heck, it is free, and you get what you pay for.

timdps
12-24-2009, 10:28 AM
Nice twist of the knife....

It would be good if someone with writing skills could craft a concise paragraph regarding how support of Chicago = support of racist laws through Slaughterhouse et al. This is something we really need to be getting out in the public eye.

I don't understand the Slaughterhouse/Cruickshank decisions well enough to write coherently about them...

Tim

blackberg
12-24-2009, 12:24 PM
nice!

-bb

bodger
12-24-2009, 12:31 PM
Nice twist of the knife....

It would be good if someone with writing skills could craft a concise paragraph regarding how support of Chicago = support of racist laws through Slaughterhouse et al. This is something we really need to be getting out in the public eye.

I don't understand the Slaughterhouse/Cruickshank decisions well enough to write coherently about them...

Tim


Yes, a well written dissertation on that. Let the liberal gun snatching politicos see how well that sits with their constituents. Especially those with fairly large blocks of African American voters that they need to appease.

nicki
12-24-2009, 12:54 PM
Great article.

We need to start changing how we define our opponents.

When we call our opponents Left Wing Liberals and many reporters identify themselves as liberals, we have a problem.

Let's instead start referring to our opponents as "Left Wing AINO (American in Name Only) Statists.

Of course when we have right wing fascists, we can call them "Right Wing AINO Statists.

By changing our terms, we can actually reach out to people who are "Lberal" because they are turned off by the "Christian Rights" so called "social agenda".

Calguns and the people on this forum will grow into the most effective "Rights Organization" if we can appeal to the political center.

For lack of a better term, we become "Radical Centrists":rolleyes:

I realize some may of you may be scratching your head saying how can someone in the political middle be a "Radical". That's the fun of it.

The reality is most people are turned off by extremists on both the left and the right, which is why we want to be center.

Nicki

Nicki

PIRATE14
12-24-2009, 1:48 PM
By changing our terms, we can actually reach out to people who are "Lberal" because they are turned off by the "Christian Rights" so called "social agenda".

Nicki

What about "social agenda".....and who's...made me chuckle...

Very nice and another KUDOs out to CGF an GENE....hammer away....

Legasat
12-24-2009, 3:38 PM
Nice shot Gene!

aileron
12-24-2009, 5:08 PM
:) Good stuff. Makes me giggle.

hoffmang
12-24-2009, 8:35 PM
Nice shot Gene!

It's fun calling anti-gunners neo-confederates and being accurate...

-Gene

Pixs
12-26-2009, 1:03 PM
Good day Folks,

First of all, I hope all of you had a wonderful Christmas.

Thank you Nicki for your thoughtful post. I couldn't agree more, the labels that are applied to different ideologies have become so corrupted over the years that they only serve to be divisive and inappropriate. My Grand-mom used to tell me that you can catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar.

The party is not the problem; the opportunistic Politicians (pimps) are. They belong to both major parties and all the small ones. A lot of the bad legislation that turned into laws were touted to be the answer to societies prayers only to be used as clubs to be wielded by LEOs (a very small minority) and politicos that have an agenda other than the laws intent. (see the seat belt law).

Derogatory comments are not the way to win over the opposition, it is best done by reminding them that you have a legitimate concern that is backed up by the United States Constitution. In short: education of the opposition is the key, especially the media that, indeed, does influence the general public. By the way, the Constitution was a most carefully crafted document designed by the best minds of their time to protect the rights of the minority of citizens, like us.

Happy New year everyone.

Best to all,

Pixs