PDA

View Full Version : CGF Mentioned AGAIN Re: Oakland Gun Laws - This Time on Ch. 7


oaklander
02-02-2010, 11:29 PM
EPIC Win!

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7252704

A group called the Calguns Foundation has already written a letter to the mayor and City Council, threatening a lawsuit if it passes. It cited lawsuits across the nation including one in Washington, D.C. that could cost $3.5 million.

ETA: I'm the fat guy at the podium.

wildhawker
02-02-2010, 11:42 PM
What podium?

burl broderick
02-02-2010, 11:42 PM
"ETA: I'm the fat guy at the podium."

Nice work, Kevin, Gene and all involved !
Thank you !

We're the fat guy at the podium.

.

oaklander
02-02-2010, 11:45 PM
Good point!

"ETA: I'm the fat guy at the podium."

Nice work, Kevin, Gene and all involved !
Thank you !

We're the fat guy at the podium.

.

thedrickel
02-02-2010, 11:57 PM
I'm the fat guy sitting down, yawning.

technique
02-03-2010, 12:02 AM
I'm the fat guy sitting down, yawning.

I saw that!:D

Oak, way to go! You should cut that hair. You look like a hippie.:p
A smart hippie.:cool:

Jpach
02-03-2010, 12:48 AM
AWESOME. So did you say what you said you were going to say on that thread you posted what you were going to say?

obeygiant
02-03-2010, 1:34 AM
way to go Oak and everyone else that was able to represent.

223Devil
02-03-2010, 1:51 AM
Excellent

oaklander
02-03-2010, 7:32 AM
LOL - no - not enough time! Only had 3 minutes!

Basically, I said the following:

1) I'm from a rough part of Oakland - and if I thought "gun control" would work to reduce crime I would support it.

2) but gun control NEVER works, criminals don't follow the law

3) these ords fail for 3 reasons - lack of public support, lack of legal support, and lack of logic

AWESOME. So did you say what you said you were going to say on that thread you posted what you were going to say?

Swatguy10_15
02-03-2010, 7:35 AM
LOL - no - not enough time! Only had 3 minutes!

Basically, I said the following:

1) I'm from a rough part of Oakland - and if I thought "gun control" would work to reduce crime I would support it.

2) but gun control NEVER works, criminals don't follow the law

3) these ords fail for 3 reasons - lack of public support, lack of legal support, and lack of logic

NICE!

loather
02-03-2010, 8:04 AM
I didn't see a fat guy at the podium. :)

grammaton76
02-03-2010, 8:11 AM
Aw, you didn't get a chance to air the nepotism angle? Because that was some major fireworks!

My375hp302
02-03-2010, 8:17 AM
How is this an "Epic win"? It said that it passed the first vote unanimously? Did I miss something?

Also, to those of you who live in Oakland.... WTF? Did you elect these people? I mean, in these hard times or services being cut and lay offs, budget cuts, ect..... Doesn't the city government have something better to do then to restrict the sale of something that they admit is not sold in the city? If they just want to pass crap to pat themselves on the back for why don't they ban the sale or use of nuclear weapons in the city.... ooohhhh .... just think how safe the city will be then!

dfletcher
02-03-2010, 8:21 AM
For those who were there, was the news report accurate?

The reporter started by saying there are no gun stores in Oakland and the city official went through an explanation of a fellow with an FFL who doesn't sell guns (yet) isn't licensed (yet) and is not doing business (yet) in Oakland. Wasn't a major angle missed in not bringing up the soon to be Oakland PD monopoly on gun stores in the city?

I suppose after all is said & done the Oakland PD Chief will "discover" his guys have to go outside Oakland to buy guns & ammo - the city council will agree "gee, that isn't right - what to do, what to do .....?"

biglou
02-03-2010, 8:31 AM
This is typical of the Libs. They will pass whatever law or policy they feel like. No matter what the facts are or what the tax payers want.

AWESOME. So did you say what you said you were going to say on that thread you posted what you were going to say?

As long as you got your say no matter how you say it even though it wasn't what you wanted to say. (Joke)

darkshier
02-03-2010, 8:33 AM
This is typical of the Libs. They will pass whatever law or policy they feel like. No matter what the facts are or what the tax payers want.



As long as you got your say no matter how you say it even though it wasn't what you wanted to say. (Joke)

Oh but you see, their working with Berkeley, Richmond and other cities hand in hand, to restrict your rights! These people really think they are doing their community a good service and that is what scares me the most.

Thank God for you guys out on the front lines getting your voice heard, it really is an inspiration to younger Calgunners like myself.

biglou
02-03-2010, 8:48 AM
They have their blinders on. This is what makes them feel good and stay in step with the rest of their Socialist Party. They know crime is out of control but refuse to do anything about it. But if you defend yourself you are the bad guy and the one with everything to lose. These are brave American's putting themselves out there in public to defend our rights.

BroncoBob
02-03-2010, 9:35 AM
So Feb. 16 is the date to keep in mind regarding this. Let's see how blind these city leaders are and how much city money they want to waste.

oaklander
02-03-2010, 10:04 AM
The EPIC part will come when we watch Oakland lose the lawsuit.

How is this an "Epic win"? It said that it passed the first vote unanimously? Did I miss something?

Also, to those of you who live in Oakland.... WTF? Did you elect these people? I mean, in these hard times or services being cut and lay offs, budget cuts, ect..... Doesn't the city government have something better to do then to restrict the sale of something that they admit is not sold in the city? If they just want to pass crap to pat themselves on the back for why don't they ban the sale or use of nuclear weapons in the city.... ooohhhh .... just think how safe the city will be then!

Rivers
02-03-2010, 12:53 PM
I saw that the city of Oakland is working in COLLABORATION with Richmond, Berkeley, etc. on this law.

So my question is, if this law is found to be unconstitutional, depriving citizens of their rights, are the cities liable like a criminal enterprise for violating the RICO anti-conspiracy statutes? Or would the city officials be subject to prosecution for such violations, especially if they acted despite the recommendations of the city attorneys?

I know there are some immunities, but even LEOs do not have complete immunity for their actions while in uniform.

WokMaster1
02-03-2010, 2:10 PM
Great job CGN. Oak, you look mean on video. I bet if you growl a bit, the city council folks will hide under their table....:p

oaklander
02-03-2010, 2:14 PM
That was my game face!!!

Great job CGN. Oak, you look mean on video. I bet if you growl a bit, the city council folks will hide under their table....:p

dfletcher
02-03-2010, 2:23 PM
If the city of Oakland wanted to really do anything about crime they would sponsor "Gun Give Back" programs where the police issue confiscated guns & ammo to anyone who has a clean record. Make the recipient put down $50.00 or so as a deposit, have the guns stamped "Property of OPD" - Lend Lease worked for Great Britain, should work for Oakland too.

grunz
02-03-2010, 3:17 PM
Since there is no shop where to buy ammo in oakland - to whom exactly will this apply? Will they pass out fingerprint kits to street dealers?

I'm confused....

twotap
02-03-2010, 4:26 PM
Yeah I do not understand either .Who does this serve? If there is no where you can purchise to begin with..Great job and THANKS to all involved

PORCH
02-03-2010, 6:33 PM
Has there been any lawsuits against the nearby cities with similar ordinances?

DRM6000
02-03-2010, 6:40 PM
who is this ffl that oakland mentions? could somebody pm the name or at least the initials of the person? i think i may have known him.

when i was younger, i knew a opd officer (who to my knowledge is still with the opd) who was also a ffl. i wonder if he still has his license? it was nice of him to let me handle a hk mp5k with sliding stock. :)

twotap
02-03-2010, 10:02 PM
RIGHT ON !

thedrickel
02-03-2010, 10:05 PM
I believe an FFL has 30 days from the date of license issuance to comply with local and state ordinances and obtain the necessary local/state licenses and permits ;)

Let's hope they don't let him brass pass it.

ldivinag
02-03-2010, 10:39 PM
go get them OAK...

keep us with the ATF email and their response...

bigcalidave
02-04-2010, 3:03 AM
Excellent !! Can anyone tell if we get spikes of interest from the bay area after this news report aired? I love hearing our name on TV !!!! Who cares what the city council thinks. They have been warned. This will be EXPENSIVE for them. I hope they don't waste too much taxpayer money fighting to create laws that are invalid!

Suckers.

Jpach
02-04-2010, 9:31 AM
LOL - no - not enough time! Only had 3 minutes!

Basically, I said the following:

1) I'm from a rough part of Oakland - and if I thought "gun control" would work to reduce crime I would support it.

2) but gun control NEVER works, criminals don't follow the law

3) these ords fail for 3 reasons - lack of public support, lack of legal support, and lack of logic

Haha its all good. You guys were there and thats what matters. But as you said, the epic part is when they lose in the end. Hows the Dogo-bull doing?

whatmeworry
02-04-2010, 5:40 PM
www.akindustriesllc.com

Website is now down !!!!

dantodd
02-04-2010, 5:49 PM
must be your connection. Works from here. (This was the first time I've visited the site for it's not cached nor was the IP address.)

oaklander
02-04-2010, 7:51 PM
Dogo doing good!

Haha its all good. You guys were there and thats what matters. But as you said, the epic part is when they lose in the end. Hows the Dogo-bull doing?

kcbrown
02-04-2010, 9:02 PM
Oaklander:

Would it be useful for a police officer to show up at the meeting and state at the podium that the police have no obligation to protect anyone?

Someone testifying something like this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3756076&postcount=20) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3756076&postcount=20) could really take the wind out of the sails of some of the supporters of this idiocy.

But I'm the last person you want to ask about political tactics or strategy, which is why I'm asking about this here...

N6ATF
02-04-2010, 11:11 PM
Oaklander:

Would it be useful for a police officer to show up at the meeting and state at the podium that the police have no obligation to protect anyone?

Someone testifying something like this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3756076&postcount=20) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3756076&postcount=20) could really take the wind out of the sails of some of the supporters of this idiocy.

But I'm the last person you want to ask about political tactics or strategy, which is why I'm asking about this here...

Useful to us, maybe. Insanely detrimental to an actively-serving officer, almost certainly.

I wouldn't do this until I was retired and on a 90% of salary-guaranteed pension for life.

oaklander
02-04-2010, 11:16 PM
The meetings are mostly theater, and a chance for the CC to see the number of supporters that we can generate (and generate press).

The real action comes in the pre-lit. letters that have been sent to them by MA & CGF.

Now they make their choice. . .

Oaklander:

Would it be useful for a police officer to show up at the meeting and state at the podium that the police have no obligation to protect anyone?

Someone testifying something like this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3756076&postcount=20) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3756076&postcount=20) could really take the wind out of the sails of some of the supporters of this idiocy.

But I'm the last person you want to ask about political tactics or strategy, which is why I'm asking about this here...