PDA

View Full Version : Poizner's stance on gun control


Forestgnome
05-07-2010, 5:21 AM
I wrote a letter to Poizner, Brown, and attempted to contact Whitman, but found no way to send an email (working on that). I got a response from Brown saying they're working on a position that will be posted on their website. I'll let you know when it happens. Here's Poizner's response and the letter:

Dear ***,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with Commissioner Steve Poizner and the campaign. We appreciate hearing your views as we work to build a grassroots movement of voters across California.

Commissioner Poizner is a supporter of the Second Amendment and opposes any attempts to chip away at the right that every Californian has to keep and bear arms. Steve believes that the Founders of the Constitution were crystal clear when establishing that people have the right to own guns for both recreational and defensive purposes. The Commissioner strongly opposed the recent signing of the ammunition bill, AB 962. His thoughts regarding the issue can be found at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCdInwNVtks

As we draw closer to Election Day, Commissioner Poizner looks forward to sharing his conservative plans to reform California with voters all across our state. We hope to earn your support as we discuss the critical issues affecting all Californians.

If you have any further questions or comments, you may contact us by e-mailing info@stevepoizner.com.

Sincerely,
Randall
Steve Poizner for Governor 2010

________________________________________
From: Kintera Inc. [eventemail@kintera.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 7:25 AM
To: Info
Subject: New Contact Notification - Contact


Comments: Dear Candidate, I am righting you seeking your thoughts and position on gun rights in California. As you may or may not know, California has often led the way in enacting new gun restrictions which, in my mind, aren't well reasoned and only serve to restrict gun owners who obey laws. For instance, the Roos-Roberti assault weapons control act prohibits such things as pistol grips and detachable magazines when combined. Do you honestly believe such a law is well reasoned? Do you believe this has prevented any crimes? Who do you think the people are who are following these laws? Breaking these laws? There are many places in the country where these things are legal, and we don't see rampant Rambo-like assaults from the owners of these weapons. Why keep laws like this that only serve to oppress lawful citizens on the books? The Roos-Roberti assault weapons control act is one of the primary concerns of gun rights supporters in California, and we'ld like to know your thoughts on keeping it as-is or changing it to allow gun owners the freedoms other states enjoy. Another primary concern of gun owners in California is the right to concealed carry. We, as citizens of the U.S., have a right to own guns and use them to protect our lives. How do we do that if we have to keep them locked up at home? Do you believe that if people had the right to carry guns that it would end up in rampant wild west shootouts? Do you believe criminals care about concealed carry laws? There are currently many states that freely allow citizens to obtain concealed carry permits. Can you give examples of problems seen in those states that have been caused by issuing concealed carry permits? Otherwise, how could you justify a position against issuing permits? We really need some input from you on these issues. I regularly communicate with many other gun rights supporters, and will forward your responses to this letter if you reply.

ned946
05-07-2010, 5:40 AM
That'll do, that'll do just fine.

:usa:

Hoologan
05-07-2010, 6:12 AM
I regularly communicate with many other gun rights supporters, and will forward your responses to this letter if you reply.

Great letter, but I hope this statement didn't cause him to answer falsely knowing that all of CGN would read this.

Forestgnome
05-07-2010, 6:23 AM
Now someone needs to write the letter "I'm concerned about gun violence. What will you do to control this?".

liketoshoot
05-07-2010, 6:33 AM
Good letter, but please have it proof read, or any letters in the future that you send.

OleCuss
05-07-2010, 6:38 AM
OK, Poizner sounds a lot better than Whitman but you mostly got a boilerplate response which doesn't mean all that much. Don't get too excited when he doesn't have any specifics supporting "Shall Issue" CCW, Open Carry, repeal of the AWB, rationalizing the waiting period, simplifying our gun laws so that you don't have to spend 6 months on CGN in order to figure out what the law mostly says.

Still a lot better than Whitman.

Oh, and if you want to send a message to Whitman, I think you can use www.talktomeg.com or go through her main website, choose "Californians" then "Talk to Meg". I think you have to register as a supporter and then some flunky will think about responding to your e-mail.

galekowitz
05-07-2010, 6:43 AM
Thanks for posting their response ***.

WokMaster1
05-07-2010, 7:00 AM
Canned response. Notice that they did not even answer your issues about Roos-Roberti AW. What he actually means is the 2A means you can have a musket & a single shot revolver. I just don't trust this guy.

OleCuss
05-07-2010, 7:17 AM
I sent them an e-mail suggesting Poizner go shooting with (and talk to) some representatives of the NRA, CGF, CRPA and maybe a few others. Might be a way that he could improve our comfort level with him without his having to go on-the-record and kill his chances in November.

Big E
05-07-2010, 7:24 AM
I would expect a similar response from any campaign group that hadn't already made a firm statement to the opposite. It’s very soft and non-committal and can be later paraphrased to say, “well this is what we meant by that”. I like the fact the original letter asked about specific points. But, IMO, it should have being limited it about two specific questions or points and then the candidate/campaign group held to give specific answers. I know, I’m dreaming….. Kudos to everyone out there who are making these contacts with these candidates (or at least trying to).

bwiese
05-07-2010, 8:56 AM
Poizner's desperate and grasping at straws.

He's suddenly found the 2nd amendment in the last month and a half.

I love those sudden changes of heart - just a few years ago when he was running aginst Ira Ruskin (AD21) he told NRA reps to "f***k off, I don't need rightwing rednecks". It was so egregious that folks thought Ruskin as a D might even have a chance of being better than an R.

Screw Poizner.

gn3hz3ku1*
05-07-2010, 9:30 AM
Poizner's desperate and grasping at straws.

He's suddenly found the 2nd amendment in the last month and a half.

I love those sudden changes of heart - just a few years ago when he was running aginst Ira Ruskin (AD21) he told NRA reps to "f***k off, I don't need rightwing rednecks". It was so egregious that folks thought Ruskin as a D might even have a chance of being better than an R.

Screw Poizner.

wow bill you really hate poizner. how do you know he told the NRA rep to F off? not that i don't believe you but i was just wondering... im going to go ask his reps about this

bwiese
05-07-2010, 10:29 AM
wow bill you really hate poizner. how do you know he told the NRA rep to F off?

Um, how would I *not* know? ;)

... im going to go ask his reps about this


His reps will either lie, or be uninformed. 6 months ago I'd say it's the former - but given most of his qualified campaign people have left his campaign (often for Whitman's) over the last half year there may be little but post-college student noobs doing such outreach work and may be unaware of his history in the AD21 race.

Hell, when one of Poizner's poor minions was chasing an assh*le like me (as well as some other Calgunners and various gun lawyers) around at gunshows, etc, you know they're in desperation mode.

All that being said, it is highly important that any politican who rebukes the NRA so roundly and rudely - and miscasting them as "rightwing", when NRA will support any valid pro-gun candidate that has a chance regardless of party - be trashed. That's when it's time for the "dead fish in your mailbox" message from gunnies.

A few years ago, an LA-area incumbent was running against a now-sitting legislator in a tight Democrat primary (the general election in that area always went to the winner of the Dem primary given the locale.) While tight, the incumbent had the usual advantages, though the opponent had some name awareness from other matters. The incumbent had a terrible gun record, created a lot of bad bills - and then went beyond that and out-and-out lied about NRA positions. As the primary race tightened, NRA materials (mailers? signs?) in support of antigun incumbent popped up in the district - and thus his opponent beat the incumbent by a few perecent. When dirt is done to CA NRA, CA NRA does dirt back. That winning legislator since then has not driven gun bills despite nature of district.

OleCuss
05-07-2010, 10:40 AM
Poizner's desperate and grasping at straws.

He's suddenly found the 2nd amendment in the last month and a half.

I love those sudden changes of heart - just a few years ago when he was running aginst Ira Ruskin (AD21) he told NRA reps to "f***k off, I don't need rightwing rednecks". It was so egregious that folks thought Ruskin as a D might even have a chance of being better than an R.

Screw Poizner.

OK, I admit I don't have all the background you have on this one - and I know you can find people to certify that he used that kind of language.

However, I also think you are taking this a little too personal. There are people who truly do change over time and I've found it has usually worked better to encourage them when they make progress toward worthy goals.

Especially in politics it is not wise to unnecessarily antagonize those who may someday rule over you. It's even more true when they start favoring your positions.

Poizner has not yet earned my trust but I want him to do that so I'll encourage him and try to open avenues for him both to learn more about reality and to communicate that to others.

I'll happily admit that I'm pretty anti-Whitman at this time, but if I thought there was a chance that I could help her move even minutely closer to my position - I'd do what I could to foster that movement.

I once had an old .22 rifle (an Explorer AR-7 IIRC) which had not been well-maintained. It sucked! Some things would not move and it would have worked better to just throw a bullet at the target than to try to use the rifle for that purpose. I didn't throw it away, I cleaned it, lubricated it, and got it working reliably again. OK, it wasn't inherently a great gun even then, but it was serviceable and it was mine. Maybe working with politicians is sometimes just a little like that?

bwiese
05-07-2010, 10:50 AM
[quote=OldCussMaybe working with politicians is sometimes just a little like that?[/QUOTE]

In the past, I've been aware of somewhat anti politicians who have changed course once the voted pro on some bill and got a ton of thank you notes, or local Members Council folks did effective outreach.

But when someone semipublicly insults the NRA reps, denounces them as rightwing rednecks (approximate wording) then a dead fish message needs to be sent.

Our only effective message in the state is "f***k with us and we rip you apart". We don't get that many opportunities to use it in CA so I'd hope a public display of dead meat would be exhibited.

Anyway, it's pretty irrelevant given the numbers - which would make refusal to respond to desperation even better.

We've all seen how screwed we've been by various folks making pro-gun pronouncements. So why should we believe someone who had an especial enmity for NRA and then is suddenly kissing our arse when he's 10+ points down?

OleCuss
05-07-2010, 10:56 AM
In the past, I've been aware of somewhat anti politicians who have changed course once the voted pro on some bill and got a ton of thank you notes, or local Members Council folks did effective outreach.

But when someone semipublicly insults the NRA reps, denounces them as rightwing rednecks (approximate wording) then a dead fish message needs to be sent.

Our only effective message in the state is "f***k with us and we rip you apart". We don't get many opportunities to use it so I'd hope a public display would be exhibited.

Anyway, it's irrelevant given the numbers.

I mostly think you're right (in my brief sojourn on CGN I've learned that you usually are).

But are we actually strong enough to rip someone apart? Or maybe I should ask if we can afford to rip politicians apart?

I'd still like to rehab Poizner, but if I don't see very strong indications that he has markedly changed his attitude then I would definitely vote for Brown over him. This still wouldn't be single-issue voting - anyone who truly does not respect the RKBA and rednecks as well as all other ethnicities simply is not a friend of conservatives or conservative issues.

ja308
05-07-2010, 12:49 PM
In dont see we have much choice-I favor Poizner over whitman.
Democrat party is the main problem in Cal.
Anyone think Brown will veto his party's legislation
Mr Weise,what do you think?
JA308

ja308
05-07-2010, 12:52 PM
oops sorry sir . bwiese.

BHP FAN
05-07-2010, 1:04 PM
I'm following this as well, I really don't want to make a mistake on this.

huck
05-07-2010, 2:03 PM
Now someone needs to write the letter "I'm concerned about gun violence. What will you do to control this?".

+1

Great idea.

bwiese
05-07-2010, 2:30 PM
In dont see we have much choice-I favor Poizner over whitman.
Democrat party is the main problem in Cal.
Anyone think Brown will veto his party's legislation
Mr Weise,what do you think?
JA308


Yes, I believe Mr. Brown has cryptolibertarian tendencies. He's also a cheapskate and at least in this area doesn't seem to care for stupid laws.

He's also had a 25 year period of making pro-gun statements even if it didn't help him. He's said, "it's not NRA members holding up liquor stores in Oakland" and has made numerous past references in public as to the 2nd amendment being
a fundamental individual right.

As AG, a lot of antigun drama just up & quit:



AG Brown filed a hugely significant amicus brief for McDonald encouraging incorporation of
2nd Amednment - represented the largest state in Union/7th largest economy in world.
All other stances in that amicus brief were just cover verbiage.
Stopped an antigun brief from going out for Heller v. DC

DOJ Firearms Division head Randy Rossi chose to rapidly find "other opportunities" in early 2007.
Alison Merrilees was essentially fired a few weeks ago.
Iggy Chinn fired (or door was 1/4" away from his arse when he left).
DOJ Firearms Division downsized to a Bureau.
Microstamping dead and likely unrevivable.



Various new regulations stopped (redefinition of 'detachable mag' etc.)
Did not support CFLC idiocy. AG and even bureacracy appear to support reform for
burdensome process that does not result in any crime stoppage.
Helped quietly intervene in trying to stop AB962.
Stopped DOJ agent interference in local cases and on certain FFL attacks, which then died.
Some cases awaiting DOJ testimony just didn't get any DOJ attention and all of a sudden
'went away'.
No support for Contos case: Alison skewered herself and left to hang; couldn't make an
"AG case" and had to shop it to local prosecutors.
Let 250+K OLLs flourish and market to continue unabated.
.
DOJ Firearms Bureau a skeleton now - mostly running DROSes & keeping guns from felons now, which is fine.

WokMaster1
05-07-2010, 2:45 PM
Yes, I believe Mr. Brown has cryptolibertarian tendencies. He's also a cheapskate and at least in this area doesn't seem to care for stupid laws.

He's also had a 25 year period of making pro-gun statements even if it didn't help him. He's said, "it's not NRA members holding up liquor stores in Oakland" and has made numerous past references in public as to the 2nd amendment being
a fundamental individual right.

As AG, a lot of antigun drama just up & quit:



AG Brown filed a hugely significant amicus brief for McDonald encouraging incorporation of
2nd Amednment - represented the largest state in Union/7th largest economy in world.
All other stances in that amicus brief were just cover verbiage.
Stopped an antigun brief from going out for Heller v. DC

DOJ Firearms Division head Randy Rossi chose to rapidly find "other opportunities" in early 2007.
Alison Merrilees was essentially fired a few weeks ago.
Iggy Chinn fired (or door was 1/4" away from his arse when he left).
DOJ Firearms Division downsized to a Bureau.
Microstamping dead and likely unrevivable.



Various new regulations stopped (redefinition of 'detachable mag' etc.)
Did not support CFLC idiocy. AG and even bureacracy appear to support reform for
burdensome process that does not result in any crime stoppage.
Helped quietly intervene in trying to stop AB962.
Stopped DOJ agent interference in local cases and on certain FFL attacks, which then died.
Some cases awaiting DOJ testimony just didn't get any DOJ attention and all of a sudden
'went away'.
No support for Contos case: Alison skewered herself and left to hang; couldn't make an
"AG case" and had to shop it to local prosecutors.
Let 250+K OLLs flourish and market to continue unabated.
.
DOJ Firearms Bureau a skeleton now - mostly running DROSes & keeping guns from felons now, which is fine.


Hello! I didn't get the memo.:D

gn3hz3ku1*
05-07-2010, 2:47 PM
Um, how would I *not* know? ;)




were you that guy? i do think you are taking this a bit more personal, unless you were that guy of course.. maybe someone can ask him at his townhall thingy this moday?

BHP FAN
05-07-2010, 3:25 PM
huck
View Public Profile
Send a private message to huck
Find all posts by huck
Add huck to Your Contacts

#21 05-07-2010, 03:30 PM
bwiese
I need a LIFE!! Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 18,412
iTrader: 2 / 100%



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308
In dont see we have much choice-I favor Poizner over whitman.
Democrat party is the main problem in Cal.
Anyone think Brown will veto his party's legislation
Mr Weise,what do you think?
JA308


Yes, I believe Mr. Brown has cryptolibertarian tendencies. He's also a cheapskate and at least in this area doesn't seem to care for stupid laws.

He's also had a 25 year period of making pro-gun statements even if it didn't help him. He's said, "it's not NRA members holding up liquor stores in Oakland" and has made numerous past references in public as to the 2nd amendment being
a fundamental individual right.

As AG, a lot of antigun drama just up & quit:


AG Brown filed a hugely significant amicus brief for McDonald encouraging incorporation of
2nd Amednment - represented the largest state in Union/7th largest economy in world.
All other stances in that amicus brief were just cover verbiage.
Stopped an antigun brief from going out for Heller v. DC

DOJ Firearms Division head Randy Rossi chose to rapidly find "other opportunities" in early 2007.
Alison Merrilees was essentially fired a few weeks ago.
Iggy Chinn fired (or door was 1/4" away from his arse when he left).
DOJ Firearms Division downsized to a Bureau.
Microstamping dead and likely unrevivable.
Various new regulations stopped (redefinition of 'detachable mag' etc.)
Did not support CFLC idiocy. AG and even bureacracy appear to support reform for
burdensome process that does not result in any crime stoppage.
Helped quietly intervene in trying to stop AB962.
Stopped DOJ agent interference in local cases and on certain FFL attacks, which then died.
Some cases awaiting DOJ testimony just didn't get any DOJ attention and all of a sudden
'went away'.
No support for Contos case: Alison skewered herself and left to hang; couldn't make an
"AG case" and had to shop it to local prosecutors.
Let 250+K OLLs flourish and market to continue unabated.
.
DOJ Firearms Bureau a skeleton now - mostly running DROSes & keeping guns from felons now, which is fine.
__________________

-----------------------
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA



CGF Board Member /NRA Patron Member / CRPA Life Member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by bwiese; 05-07-2010 at 03:34 PM.

Holy Crud...I might have to vote for...Brown?!

Mstrty
05-07-2010, 4:15 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=54976&stc=1&d=1273276225

I know we are on a Gun Forum. But my Vote for Governor in California doesn’t hinge 100% on guns.
1st for me is economy. Brown won’t help me there. Small business groups and the California Chamber says if its Brown Flush it down. Im unable to remember what good he did for California. I have yet to see any evidence of past economic success.
2nd Abortion; Brown is known to pro-lifers for his pro-abortion policies during his past political career. A lot of the babies that have been ground up over the last couple of decades have Jerry to thank.
3rd. The second Amendment. Which we know it’s not about Jerry. It’s about the full time legislators that nothing better to do than write "feel good" bills.
example AB1934 does nothing to protect California but to make a few legislators "feel good".

Either Poizner or Jerry in the end will be step in the right direction in regards to the 2nd amendment.
I will attempt to help Poizner in the primary. If its Poizner vs. Brown, Brown will win and CRPA board members will be happy. That’s the way I believe it will turn out.
California doesn’t need one gun advocate to vote for Brown and Brown will still get 100% of the Democratic vote which will be enough to get him elected. JM2C

Forestgnome
05-07-2010, 5:29 PM
Good letter, but please have it proof read, or any letters in the future that you send.
Proof read? Surely you jest!

gn3hz3ku1*
05-08-2010, 2:36 PM
i dont think voting just on gun rights is going to help America.

After looking at all the issues I will be supporting Steve.

He is against illegal immigration.
His heart is in the right place, and knows what needs to be done for education in CA.
He is understands what we need to do to get business to stay in CA.
He is gun enough for me. After all my own fam thinks I already have too much! boooo

dantodd
05-08-2010, 3:13 PM
wow bill you really hate poizner. how do you know he told the NRA rep to F off? not that i don't believe you but i was just wondering... im going to go ask his reps about this

I pretty much post exclusively in the 2A forum. It would appear that you rarely visit here. CalGuns Foundation, of which Bill is the Vice Chairman, is one of the preeminent firearms rights advocacy groups in this state. As such the members of the CGF board, including Bill, work very closely with their related organizations. CGF has excellent relations with the NRA, CRPA and some other organizations. Bill is also personally involved with fighting for firearms rights beyond and before his CGF involvement. Asking him how he knows which politicians shat upon pro-gun lobbyists and organizations is like asking a cop how he knows where the bad-guys hang out in his neighborhood.

bwiese
05-08-2010, 3:17 PM
i dont think voting just on gun rights is going to help America.

It always puzzles me how gunnies think they'll save their gunrights by gluing on other baggage to their vote.

Every successful pressure group gets a huge chunk of its membership to vote single-issue-only.

Unfortunately gunnies always manage to dilute the issue with other politics.

BTW: the statement about "F***k the NRA, I don't need rightwing rednecks" (approx quote) was to Mike Schroeder of Bay Area NRA Member's Councils - who keeps files on all Bay Area candidates - even the ones that lose or drop out may come back alive again, like Poizner, and require stomping into the ground.

[Mike's attention to detail and elephantine memory was also involved in the fight to retain gunshows in San Jose: he & his crew caught the Board of Supervisors violating the Brown Act trying to ban the gunshows, and they became personally liable... when the supes found out Chuck Michel was getting account/asset disclosures and home valuations of the supervisors in preparation for a very, very easy lawsuit, they folded like a drunk prom queen in the backseat of a Chevy and killed the ban.]

gn3hz3ku1*
05-08-2010, 3:23 PM
I pretty much post exclusively in the 2A forum. It would appear that you rarely visit here. CalGuns Foundation, of which Bill is the Vice Chairman, is one of the preeminent firearms rights advocacy groups in this state. As such the members of the CGF board, including Bill, work very closely with their related organizations. CGF has excellent relations with the NRA, CRPA and some other organizations. Bill is also personally involved with fighting for firearms rights beyond and before his CGF involvement. Asking him how he knows which politicians shat upon pro-gun lobbyists and organizations is like asking a cop how he knows where the bad-guys hang out in his neighborhood.

haha i'm always on calguns. i totally respect Bill and his work. I just want to pick the lesser of the evils for me. Guns are very important however there are lots of other problems that are also important so I just try to look at the package as a whole. It would suck if we have all the gun rights we want but end up with all the illegals taking up all our resources.

dantodd
05-08-2010, 3:28 PM
haha i'm always on calguns. i totally respect Bill and his work. I just want to pick the lesser of the evils for me. Guns are very important however there are lots of other problems that are also important so I just try to look at the package as a whole. It would suck if we have all the gun rights we want but end up with all the illegals taking up all our resources.

I understand that you are always on CGN, your post count makes that pretty clear, I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt for questioning Bill's veracity when you said "how do you know he told the NRA rep to F off?" With Bill's background it should be blatantly obvious, "because the NRA rep involved told him."

So, have you had a chance to ask Steve's representatives why he previkously told the NRA to F-Off and now has changed his position?

bwiese
05-08-2010, 3:28 PM
Guns are very important however there are lots of other problems that are also important so I just try to look at the package as a whole.

Mistake. One thing at a time.

Timing is everything, and this is the time to back gunrights while the state is broke, the courts are moving our way, and candidates are seeking the gun vote.

There's a time to be relevant, and this is it.

dantodd
05-08-2010, 3:30 PM
Hello! I didn't get the memo.:D

I'm with your Wok, I want the scoop on the new employment status of Ms. Merrilees.

bwiese
05-08-2010, 3:42 PM
I'm with your Wok, I want the scoop on the new employment status of Ms. Merrilees.

Dept. AG Merrilees has moved on to a be a legislative aide for an East Bay rep.

The timing of her transition is unusual - usually they serve out time until their upper level management changes (i.e., after election/end of term).

I'd bet, if asked, that she'd say she "welcomed the opportunity to help Legislator X in her goals <blah blah blah>". I'd even also bet that customary flowery language would be available from DOJ sources praising her for her crimefighting abilities - that's just the way things are done in gov't.

Other rumors exist, however - that she was bucking for promotion (Dept AG at next higher level and/or to run the Firearms Bureau, and which are not mutually exclusive) - and was roundly rejected.

It appears the DOJ Firearms Bureau has become fairly depoliticized now and is just running DROSes, ensuring felons don't buy guns, etc. Minor worries exist about competency in enforcement - since LE Div agents would be doing enforcement - but if we hear of something going sideways, it's pretty easy to fix. Given that every gunshow in CA has hundreds of black rifles being sold, and that DOJ has returned BB'd OLLs to their owners, I think things are in a quiescent mode and likely to stay there.

bwiese
05-08-2010, 3:47 PM
So, have you had a chance to ask Steve's representatives why he previkously told the NRA to F-Off and now has changed his position?

Some or all of the Poizner reps will likely either
(1) lie, because they're desparate;
(2) not know the story because many/most of his the experienced
campaign workers have moved to Whitman or elsewhere in the last
half year, and outreach is now being done by younger post-college
grads.

You have to wonder about a candidacy so desperate to follow Calgunners around at gunshows, call every gun lawyer they know, etc. If they're
trying to talk to me, they're really hurtin' (and uninformed/poorly researched). If they're sending young grads out for group outreach,
they're equally hurtin'.

Hogxtz
05-08-2010, 4:17 PM
It looks like Poizner "screwed the pooch" when he told the NRA to "f------f" and than now tells people he is all about pro-2a. Folks, this a what you call a severe integrity problem. Who the hell could possibly believe his current campain promises now?? Really?? Oh wait, I know, SHEEPLE!!

gn3hz3ku1*
05-08-2010, 7:18 PM
I understand that you are always on CGN, your post count makes that pretty clear, I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt for questioning Bill's veracity when you said "how do you know he told the NRA rep to F off?" With Bill's background it should be blatantly obvious, "because the NRA rep involved told him."

So, have you had a chance to ask Steve's representatives why he previkously told the NRA to F-Off and now has changed his position?

i did ask.. they don't know but apparently they do know bill and calguns :) btw i didnt bring up his name they did

big red
05-08-2010, 10:43 PM
Considering some of the attitudes on here towards Poizner I do not blame his people for playing it a little close to the vest when responding to inquires from certain people identifed with this site. Especially those accusing him of things and clearly anti-Poiszner by their attitude. I intend on voting for him because while his answers are not great at least he is the most positive of any of them. but the real test will be if he makes it and then what does he do? Brown as been there twice and not done anything either time and Whitman is clearly not interested in preserving the rights of any little guy. And as for the f-----ff remark until the NRA man it was supposedly said to comes on this site and says it in writing in public where he is accountable for it then it is nothing but second hand hearsay and bordering on slanderous?

dantodd
05-08-2010, 10:46 PM
i did ask.. they don't know but apparently they do know bill and calguns :) btw i didnt bring up his name they did

They know who Bill is yet they have no idea why Steve did a 180 on 2A rights?

dantodd
05-08-2010, 10:51 PM
It appears the DOJ Firearms Bureau has become fairly depoliticized now and is just running DROSes, ensuring felons don't buy guns, etc.

It would sure be nice if it stayed depoliticized and just focused on enforcing the laws and let "us" fight it with the legislature (largely in the judiciary) over what those laws are going to be.

p.s. my spelling is atrocious today.

gorblimey
05-09-2010, 12:35 AM
Poizner's desperate and grasping at straws.

He's suddenly found the 2nd amendment in the last month and a half.

I love those sudden changes of heart - just a few years ago when he was running aginst Ira Ruskin (AD21) he told NRA reps to "f***k off, I don't need rightwing rednecks". It was so egregious that folks thought Ruskin as a D might even have a chance of being better than an R.

Screw Poizner.


Yet another perfidious RINO p1ssant, offering his less than meaningless variation on Obambam's "I'm not going to take your guns".

Dr.Lou
05-09-2010, 6:44 AM
It's not just the candidate you have to worry about, it's the folks they bring with them that you also need to consider.

weezil_boi
05-09-2010, 1:29 PM
Here are your options for governor...

1. Poizner - fence sitter on guns and no real plan to create positive change in CA economy. Probably see more tribal gaming expansion. Just nothing to be excited or woriied about here. Think... Gray Davis. - But, he'd sell us down the river for a second term if we had several more high profile gun related incidents, all in the name of public safety. He is not pro gun, hes pro public safety.

2. Whitman - asinine ideas of getting welfare reform done (no one... NO ONE is going to go along with her wide changes in the Leg... nope, no one.) But, it sounds good dont it ;) -on guns, well... that'll suk. - maybe we will see some meager tax relief for businesses and the beginnings of an economic revival. But, with the comming cuts to state budgets and programs ( regardless of who wins)... Meg will be out after just one term... and a radical/mucho Democrat will slide in to bend us all over - especially us gun owners. A vote for this woman will be the single most destructive thing that you could do for your gun rights in the next ten years.

3. Brown - I can believe it, but I am likely going to vote for this man. For nothing else, but he seems to have a hidden respect for legal gun owners and I hope his age has brought him some wisdom. Basically, hes the least damaging to the cause. He just wont get much of anything else done either. But, he will make sure that crazy $$ highspeed rail system goes through ( siemens is busting out bubbly :) ). Cuts to programs and workers... some, tax hikes, some... more gun control, little if any...same old same old for a couple terms, yup.

None are great options in my book, but Brown is least damaging. Unless he F***s it up in the next six months, hes got my vote.

FirstFlight
05-09-2010, 1:41 PM
In the 2006 California elections, when Steve Poizner was running for Commissioner of Insurance, the NRA graded him "A". Of course there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then so no telling what the next NRA grade will be. California Primary election is on June 8 so the NRA will be posting those grades soon. The website for Grades and Endorsements is www.nrapvf.org

bwiese
05-09-2010, 2:07 PM
In the 2006 California elections, when Steve Poizner was running for Commissioner of Insurance, the NRA graded him "A". Of course there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then so no telling what the next NRA grade will be. California Primary election is on June 8 so the NRA will be posting those grades soon. The website for Grades and Endorsements is www.nrapvf.org (http://www.nrapvf.org)

That was for insurance commissioner, which generally does not have much gun relevance and may well have reflected issues with his opponent.

And while such ratings generally true, on occasion these ratings come from VA without maybe double checking deep background.

If I had any reason to believe CA NRA had love for Steve Poizner I'd not have posted various things about him - esp when key CA NRA on-the-ground organizers got "F***k off.., I don't need rightwing rednecks".... by him.

Midtown Gunner
05-09-2010, 2:15 PM
It's frightening when our best hopes for 2A protections come by re-electing Governor Moonbeam.

bwiese
05-09-2010, 2:22 PM
It's frightening when our best hopes for 2A protections come by re-electing Governor Moonbeam.

I assume you don't know the origin of the appellation, "moonbeam" because it ends up fairly complimentary.

Midtown Gunner
05-09-2010, 2:31 PM
You know, I don't know! Please share it.

gn3hz3ku1*
05-09-2010, 2:33 PM
They know who Bill is yet they have no idea why Steve did a 180 on 2A rights?

That i have no answer for. They also said he does not want anymore gun laws.

Why can't we just be like AZ??? whhyyyyyyyyy
I wish i had to chose between an gov who wants me to have a full auto vs one who wants to build a damn fence down south...

There is no perfect candiate, the only one in my eyes would be if I run for Governor.

Hmm maybe start off at city council and make REAL change there. IE hello chief of police.... so please tell me again why you do think law abiding citizens can not carry guns legally?

bwiese
05-09-2010, 2:39 PM
You know, I don't know! Please share it.

The 'moonbeam' terminology came from an editorial by Chicago op/ed writer Mike Royko who was making fun of JB's proposal to use satellites to carry state gov't phone traffic - in late 1970s AT&T wireline service was costing a bundle, and this might well have saved some bucks. [This was before early 80s massive phone deregulation too.]

So he got made fun of as "moonbeam" by trying to use lower-cost new technology as a bypass of higher cost overregulated monopolistic services.
The proposal never got off the ground for other reasons, but it certainly was a considered opinion of a thinking man.

Royko later apologized.

FirstFlight
05-09-2010, 2:40 PM
That was for insurance commissioner, which generally does not have much gun relevance and may well have reflected issues with his opponent.

And while such ratings generally true, on occasion these ratings come from VA without maybe double checking deep background.

If I had any reason to believe CA NRA had love for Steve Poizner I'd not have posted various things about him - esp when key CA NRA on-the-ground organizers got "F***k off.., I don't need rightwing rednecks".... by him.

Thanks for the input Bill. One would think that these politicians would have the intelligence to "be nice" to an organization that could get them several hundred thousand votes. One remark like that can lose an election!

big red
05-09-2010, 3:31 PM
Well, everyone has a right to vote for who they want and it is fairly clear that certain parties on this site are going to make baseless charges, repeat publicly second hand remarks that may or may not be true, and to badger everyone into voting their way as long as they have a free forum to sound off on their view of politics and can be more rabid than anyone else. What I have seen here is about as baised a free for all as you will find anywhere and it is why the guns laws are going to get worse and not better. Don't blame the the candidates blame yourselves. If you wonder why more moderate gun owners and shooting enthusiasts are leaving the state just look at some of the rabid biased statements made on this thread. If the people do not screw us by electing the wrong person to the governor's chair I am sure all the Brady bunch will have to do is copy some of these threads and give them to the liberal legislature and by next year we'll be wishing the only laws we had to worry about are the ones we live under now. And as for Jerry Brown I could give a rat's a-- about his stance on guns because we are going to be bankrupt as a state anyway and your taxes are going to skyrocket if he does what he did last time. And he is not any smarter but he is cagier. He has ruined everyplace he has served and the facts speak for themselves when you look at the debt ratio before he took over and after he left. The facts do not lie. And it has nothing to do with his stance on guns. Think about your families and not your guns when you think about putting that vote down for Brown. he has already proven himself as a failure in the state and Oakland. Meg has said she intends to cut everything like Arnie and Poizner has not said anything which is just as bad. But what galls me the most are those that say they are objective and every word they put down is heavily biased in favor of a candidate as if they are campaigning for him and that means they do not have our best interests at heart.

gn3hz3ku1*
05-09-2010, 4:15 PM
Thanks for the input Bill. One would think that these politicians would have the intelligence to "be nice" to an organization that could get them several hundred thousand votes. One remark like that can lose an election!

several hundred thousand? does the NRA have that power in CA?

FirstFlight
05-09-2010, 4:30 PM
several hundred thousand? does the NRA have that power in CA?

I would hope so. I have heard estimates of one million gun owners in CA. I don't know how many NRA members there are in CA but the numbers are not that important. Non member gun owners historically follow the recommendations of the NRA. The politicians in Washington DC figure, as a rule of thumb, that although the NRA only has 4 million members, they represent 10 million votes. I suppose that those numbers represent the spouses/friends/kids of the members plus whatever non-members tag along.

gn3hz3ku1*
05-09-2010, 5:18 PM
I would hope so. I have heard estimates of one million gun owners in CA. I don't know how many NRA members there are in CA but the numbers are not that important. Non member gun owners historically follow the recommendations of the NRA. The politicians in Washington DC figure, as a rule of thumb, that although the NRA only has 4 million members, they represent 10 million votes. I suppose that those numbers represent the spouses/friends/kids of the members plus whatever non-members tag along.

ahh makes sense... forgot about the family vote.

bwiese
05-09-2010, 7:50 PM
Well, everyone has a right to vote for who they want and it is fairly clear that certain parties on this site are going to make baseless charges, repeat publicly second hand remarks that may or may not be true

You appear to be calling me a liar.

I can produce the people (who could be deponse under oath should it ever become necessary) that Steve Poizner told NRA reps to f*** off, that he didn't need right-wing redneck support, etc.

And as for Jerry Brown I could give a rat's a-- about his stance on guns because we are going to be bankrupt as a state anyway

We're already bankrupt.

If you think Steve or Meg has any chance of controlling a Dem majority in leglislature, you're sadly mistaken.

You're also another sellout who somehow gets 'bribed' by another issue into voting guns second if at all. That's not what I call 'pro-gun'.

And please tell me why you think Meg or Steve Poizner would be any better (if not worse) than Arnold in vetoing bad gun bills.

he has already proven himself as a failure in the state and Oakland.


Funny, I recally him being an OK governor in times better than this, and with most of the issues then being Federal ("Carter malaise" and Arab oil issues), not state-based.

And his mayoral stint in Oakland was not much differentiated from a typical pro-biz, anti-crime metro Republican mayor in a weak-mayor system - hampered by a far, far left Oakland City Council.

Better gets some facts, sonny, before you come close to having a valid argument.

People such as myself have your best GUN interests at heart.

I'll let you worry about your skills and mindeset to be employable - that's your job.

bwiese
05-09-2010, 7:54 PM
I would hope so. I have heard estimates of one million gun owners in CA. I don't know how many NRA members there are in CA but the numbers are not that important. Non member gun owners historically follow the recommendations of the NRA. The politicians in Washington DC figure, as a rule of thumb, that although the NRA only has 4 million members, they represent 10 million votes. I suppose that those numbers represent the spouses/friends/kids of the members plus whatever non-members tag along.

Very good point.

NRA state numbers are secret, for obvious political weight reasons.

Between the membership drive and the Obama gun surge, I'd bet they're up - in addition to the OLL sales. I think many OLL buyers and Calgunners finally saw how Team CA NRA and its lawyers really helped box things in for us - with AB2728 as icing in the cake. Unquestionably with the 250K new OLLs in CA since end of 2006 there must be a spike in CA NRA memberships.

Combine the 'family effect' with the 'I forgot to renew but vote for guns' crowd and that is a fair amount of weight - subtract out some fraction of the sellout folks that are bribed somehow to vote for other reasons instead of 'guns first'.

chuckles48
05-09-2010, 8:16 PM
The 'moonbeam' terminology came from an editorial by Chicago op/ed writer Mike Royko who was making fun of JB's proposal to use satellites to carry state gov't phone traffic - in late 1970s AT&T wireline service was costing a bundle, and this might well have saved some bucks. [This was before early 80s massive phone deregulation too.]

So he got made fun of as "moonbeam" by trying to use lower-cost new technology as a bypass of higher cost overregulated monopolistic services.
The proposal never got off the ground for other reasons, but it certainly was a considered opinion of a thinking man.

Royko later apologized.

[sigh] It always helps to mix some truth into your fiction. Helps it sell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.html

The "moonbeam" tag _did_ come from Royko, but not for the reason Bill attributes. It was tagged because of the "moonbeam" voters Brown was attracting. The satellite idea came along later, well after the tag was already in place.

Nice try, Bill.

BTW, you might try applying the same standards of logic you use to explain away Poizner's NRA A rating, to explaining away Brown's F rating (as AG, which surely IS germane to the issue).

bwiese
05-09-2010, 8:27 PM
[sigh] It always helps to mix some truth into your fiction. Helps it sell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.html

The "moonbeam" tag _did_ come from Royko, but not for the reason Bill attributes. It was tagged
because of the "moonbeam" voters Brown was attracting. The satellite idea came along later, well after the tag was already in place.

Nice try, Bill.

That's a NY Times recap which may not have covered the ground completely. Satellites did play a role i
that naming.

I recall that it also involved more than emergency comms as state phone bills for daily work were way
high too, but don't have any immediate attribution for that.


Brown often proposed unorthodox ideas including .... the purchasing of a satellite that would
be launched into orbit to provide emergency communications for the state —a proposal similar
to one that would indeed be adopted by the state.

In 1978, Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko nicknamed Brown "Governor Moonbeam" because
of the latter idea. The nickname quickly became associated with his quirky politics, which were
considered eccentric by some in California and the rest of the nation. In 1992, almost 15 years
later, Royko would disavow the nickname, proclaiming Brown to be "just as serious" as any other
politician.



BTW, you might try applying the same standards of logic you use to explain away Poizner's NRA A rating,
to explaining away Brown's F rating (as AG, which surely IS germane to the issue).

Sometimes those ratings don't always reflect local on the ground info, or perhaps certain subfactions out of state. My information is correct and from The Horse's Mouth (local CA NRA staff who were vetting him).

I believe Poizner's opponent may have had some worse drama, and it was a friggin' insurance commissioner slot.

I am surprised Brown has an F given kind words I've heard for some time.
I'm reasonably certain it won't be now. But we don't want to overrate him and give him a formal NRA 'A' or the antis will blast him with it.

Again my information on Poizner comes straight from CA NRA workers who had directly contacted him. NOTHING
WAS LOST IN THE TRANSLATION and this didn't get routed thru Fairfax.

hasserl
05-09-2010, 8:40 PM
It always puzzles me how gunnies think they'll save their gunrights by gluing on other baggage to their vote.

Every successful pressure group gets a huge chunk of its membership to vote single-issue-only.

Unfortunately gunnies always manage to dilute the issue with other politics.

BTW: the statement about "F***k the NRA, I don't need rightwing rednecks" (approx quote) was to Mike Schroeder of Bay Area NRA Member's Councils - who keeps files on all Bay Area candidates - even the ones that lose or drop out may come back alive again, like Poizner, and require stomping into the ground.

[Mike's attention to detail and elephantine memory was also involved in the fight to retain gunshows in San Jose: he & his crew caught the Board of Supervisors violating the Brown Act trying to ban the gunshows, and they became personally liable... when the supes found out Chuck Michel was getting account/asset disclosures and home valuations of the supervisors in preparation for a very, very easy lawsuit, they folded like a drunk prom queen in the backseat of a Chevy and killed the ban.]

Now it an approximate quote. This is obviously an issue of personal dislike, that you're allowing to cloud rational thought on the subject, and which you are employing to influence the thought processes of others that respect you for your service on the CGF. That's rather inappropriate IMO. The very least you could do, if you're going to engage in the politics of personal destruction, is to get your statements and your fact right.

Successful pressure groups are successful not because they vote single issue, but because they support one political party, and as long as that party is in power they are protected.

You say that your big concern is gun rights (I have my doubts that is truly the case, I think the big issue here is actually the hatred you harbor for Poizner), but what you fail to see is that gun rights are just a symptom of a much larger problem. As long as you have a government that feels at ease restricting, limiting and/or eliminating individual liberty, freedom and rights, than gun rights are at risk. They are not at risk because we have a government that believes in protecting individual rights, but just happens to hate guns, so they preserve all other rights and attack gun rights only. The problem is liberty is under attack from all directions, guns being only one of them. When you support a Democrat for governor, ANY DEMOCRAT, you strengthen that party, and that WILL lead to more loss of gun rights, regardless of who that Dem governor is. You are only fooling yourself if you rationalize it any other way.

I do not intend by that to say that Republican politicians are much better at protecting rights than Democrats, but there is a difference however slight it may be. And that difference is in the right direction. But more important is that Democrats hold the majority in both the Senate and the Assembly, so they get to control the legislative process, if you also give them the Governorship, you give them an unstoppable means of removing even more individual rights and freedoms, and you can bet your bottom dollar, more guns rights will be among those lost. At this point of the game you absolutely must beak the power of the Democrat party, and Republican is the only possible alternative to do that. Whoever the Republican candidate is in the general election, it is vital for gun rights that we all support them and hopefully get them into office.

Don't forget that one of the duties of the Governor is appointment of judges on state appellate courts, as well as boards and commissions. This is one of the most important aspects that we have to consider. Giving this job to Jerry Brown, you've got be out of your mind. The appellate court's are an important layer in the process of fighting the loss of rights. A Dem Governor will pack the courts with liberal and activists judges that will make the preservation of gun rights, and the fight for those improperly convicted of violations involving use of guns, even more difficult.

That on a forum specifically dedicated to preserving gun rights it is unfathomable that a leader of the host organization would allow personal dislike and hatred for one individual to influence them to support the enemy. And make no mistake about it, when it comes to preservation of gun rights (most individual rights), Democrats are the enemy.

chuckles48
05-09-2010, 8:49 PM
That's a NY Times recap which may not have covered the ground completely. Satellites did play a role in that naming.

I recall that it also involved more than emergency comms as state phone bills for daily work were way high too, but don't have any immediate attribution for that.

[indent]
Brown often proposed unorthodox ideas including .... the purchasing of a satellite that would be launched into orbit to provide emergency communications for the state —a proposal similar to one that would indeed be adopted by the state.

Here, let's just put a stake in the heart of this misconception.
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Jerry:Brown.htm

The "moonbeam" tag came about in 1976. The satellite idea was mooted in 1978.

The timing doesn't add up. Period. EOL.
Sometimes those ratings don't always reflect local on the ground info, or perhaps certain subfactions out of state. My information is correct and from The Horse's Mouth (local CA NRA staff who were vetting him).

I believe Poizner's opponent may have had some worse drama, and it was a friggin' insurance commissioner slot.

I am surprised Brown has an F given kind words I've heard for some time.
I'm reasonably certain it won't be now. But we don't want to overrate him and give him a formal NRA 'A' or the antis will blast him with it.

I've pointed you at the Brown F rating datum before. Get used to it. NRA doesn't think he's as pro-gun as you think he is.

Again my information on Poizner comes straight from CA NRA workers who had directly contacted him. NOTHING WAS LOST IN THE TRANSLATION and this didn't get routed thru Fairfax.

Frankly, a lot of your information comes from unnamed private sources. I've pointed out the problems with this in the past, and been told that I should "just trust y'all".

Bottom line - it doesn't matter. As far as the Republican primary goes, given a choice between Poizner (who may only be slightly pro-gun, or neutral) and Meg Whitman, I'm not sure why there's even any debate at this point.

And frankly, by the time it _does_ matter, in the fall, MacDonald will be decided, we'll potentially have decisions on some of the other cases, and the landscape will be different.

So, if I might make a suggestion - damage control for now (Poizner v. Whitman), and save your ammo for the real fight in the fall, once we know what the battleground will look like.

hasserl
05-09-2010, 8:50 PM
Funny, I recally him being an OK governor in times better than this

It was Gov Jerry Brown who put the brakes on infrastructure improvements in this state. Ironic that his father, as governor, did much to help build this state into the great state that it used to be. It was Gov Moonbeam that started it on the downward spiral it's been in since his administration. Got traffic gridlock in your area, you can thank JB for that.

gn3hz3ku1*
05-09-2010, 8:59 PM
o i dont get this. nra gives poizner an A after he told their rep to f off and gives a guy a F who some say is pro gun? is calguns turning into washington?

either way. i'm going for poizner, I love my guns but i view illegal immigration as more important for this vote. not like poizner is a gun grabber.

bwiese
05-09-2010, 9:03 PM
Now it an approximate quote. This is obviously an issue of personal dislike, that you're allowing to cloud rational thought on the subject, and which you are employing to influence the thought processes of others that respect you for your service on the CGF. That's rather inappropriate IMO. The very least you could do, if you're going to engage in the politics of personal destruction, is to get your statements and your fact right.

I see the Poizner trolls are out.

Yes, it is an issue of 'personal dislike' - if someone has told the NRA to fly a kite in the past, they've told ME to fly a kite too.

And please do not bring up CGF as CGF has nothing to do with electoral politics. I'm just a gunnie p*ssed off because when the NRA is insulted, I AM INSULTED as a member and activist. Moreso, when someone insults the NRA to an NRA rep's face, it's pretty likely he ain't gonna be good for guns in the future.

My facts are right. The quote was 'approximate' in that there may have been an 'and' vs. 'or or 'um' or 'ah' or trivial issue with a comma. Mike Schrader of the NRA team working on Bay Area campaigns told me this directly and is glad to be known as the originator. When I chatted with him he did not have exact 100% words at hand, but can produce them from his files he keeps.

The words are fairly irrelevant since the sentiment means "I don't ever want to represent you." You're arguing punctuation when I'm arguing sentiment.



Successful pressure groups are successful not because they vote single issue, but because they support one political party, and as long as that party is in power they are protected.

Yep and we gunnies have been well-served by CA Republicans, haven't we? We know the Dems are broad-based antigun, so the Repubs have more to hold up esp if they want to carry the pro-gun banner.

So we get POSes that conveniently want the gun vote and forget about us.

Remember that other folks who had voiced pro-gun sentiments and who had 'moderate' personalities like Poizner brought us swing votes on Roberti-Roos and SB23. (Anyone remember Chuck Quackenbush??)


You say that your big concern is gun rights (I have my doubts that is truly the case, I think the big issue here is actually the hatred you harbor for Poizner),

I vote and try to drive issues ONLY on gunrights. Period. Single issue.

Real-world pro-gun? Like.
Antigun? Don't like.
Antigun acting like pro-gun? Clear the frauds out to clean up the slate.

If a truly pro-gun candidate that can win had a campaign platform involving subsidized herds of purple masturbating monkeys, I would support him - because that issue is NOT gunrights, and I'm not scared of purple monkeys; I am scared of gunrights. I have zero confidence that Poizner will veto bad gun bills esp as he'd be a weak governor (minority party, tradeoffs with legislature, etc.) Think Schwarzennegger II.


If there were none of this drama, nothing ever would have been said.

Of course I can't speak for the NRA itself but knowing the persons involved in these matters well, and trusting them 100% -- it appears you may get to deny Jesus three times, but you only get once with the NRA.

Any politician who moves against the NRA in CA needs to be trashed -- especially those who come back trying to kiss gunny arse! And now, Poizner's team has been trying to find every damn gunnie - including arseholes like myself - and beg for support.




As long as you have a government that feels at ease restricting, limiting and/or eliminating individual liberty, freedom and rights, than gun rights are at risk. They are not at risk because we have a government that believes in protecting individual rights, but just happens to hate guns, so they preserve all other rights and attack gun rights only. The problem is liberty is under attack from all directions, guns being only one of them. When you support a Democrat for governor, ANY DEMOCRAT, you strengthen that party, and that WILL lead to more loss of gun rights, regardless of who that Dem governor is. You are only fooling yourself if you rationalize it any other way.

Your bloc thinking doesn't work in CA. We've gotten more pro-gun work out of SOME Dems than we have a slough of Rs.



I do not intend by that to say that Republican politicians are much better at protecting rights than Democrats, but there is a difference however slight it may be. And that difference is in the right direction. But more important is that Democrats hold the majority in both the Senate and the Assembly, so they get to control the legislative process,

Yep, and given that this won't change much I have zero confidence - esp based on the behaviors noted - that Poizner could remotely stand up to them.


That on a forum specifically dedicated to preserving gun rights it is unfathomable that a leader of the host organization would allow personal dislike and hatred for one individual to influence them to support the enemy. And make no mistake about it, when it comes to preservation of gun rights (most individual rights), Democrats are the enemy.

OK I have automatically tuned you out because you're living in rightist fantasy land.

INDIVIDUAL candidates need to be selected and rewarded for specific behaviors. That way gunnie vote is RELEVANT. It also stops Republicans from making assumptions about owning the gun vote - we've seen where that got us. T

Jerry Brown's appointments to state courts won't matter on guns that much down the line when we have an incorporated RKBA and other matters coming down from Fed land. What WILL matter in the SHORT term is that we can fight the future legal battles we need - without having to fight more because bad laws got signed by the governor.

bwiese
05-09-2010, 9:08 PM
I've pointed you at the Brown F rating datum before. Get used to it. NRA doesn't think he's as pro-gun as you think he is.

Opinions of local CA NRA team should be counted on more than one routed thru Fairfax, VA and possibly based just on questionnaire. That may be old stale info too.

Info I receive includes people reporting to highest levels in NRA and who are actively fighting gun rot in CA.

Given the all the favorable changes in DOJ Firearms group, etc. I think enough people here are bright enough to read between the lines. But some people, as Gene Hoffman says, need to see our best double agent march down the street in full colors.


Bottom line: anyone who trashes the NRA needs to be dumped on. Poizner trashed the NRA. He's being dumped on. In no way is this a Whitman endorsement either: her booth staff at gunshows are trying to claim NRA support thru 'hat tricks'.

So I'd expect 'nonendorsement thru silence' to be the msg - and NRA really doesn't speak til general election anyway.

N6ATF
05-09-2010, 9:22 PM
I am surprised Brown has an F given kind words I've heard for some time.
I'm reasonably certain it won't be now. But we don't want to overrate him and give him a formal NRA 'A' or the antis will blast him with it.


So he should be rated an F again or D at best, to trick the antis into voting for him? How would the inverse work against the Republicans infected with VD?

gn3hz3ku1*
05-09-2010, 9:26 PM
well bill i totally respect your work for our rights. however, i wonKt be following your lead here.

Sleepy McGee
05-09-2010, 9:29 PM
either way. i'm going for poizner, I love my guns but i view illegal immigration as more important for this vote. not like poizner is a gun grabber.

^This^

re: Brown
What am I supposed to believe, some third or fourth party backroom nod-wink hearsay or my own two eyes? ...LOL!

bwiese
05-09-2010, 9:52 PM
^This^

re: Brown
What am I supposed to believe, some third or fourth party backroom nod-wink hearsay or my own two eyes? ...LOL!


Are you really seeing anything with those own two eyes?

Just sayin'....

hasserl
05-10-2010, 7:47 AM
I see the Poizner trolls are out.

Ad hominems are a weak way to argue a position. I am not a troll for Poizner or anyone else. It is interesting to note that you seem to dominate any thread that mentions Poizner, who is the one doing the trolling? Let's just not go down the path of insults and personal attacks, OK?

I think you are making a huge mistake offering support to Brown. Proponents of gun rights will never be successful splitting their votes up among different party's. The reason anti gun activists have been as successful as they have been is because they are unified behind the Democrats. It is the same with other special interest groups in this state such as public employees unions, teachers and nurses. They have a nice successful symbiotic relationship where each one supports the success of the other. Dem's are dependent on the support of the special interests to provide monetary support for campaigns and bodies on the street doing the work. The special interests are dependent on the favors granted to them by the Dem politicians that are elected, i.e. increasing the numbers of public employees, swelling the ranks of campaign contributors and sympathetic voters. Each one feeds the other and together they grow stronger and stronger. And you propose to support them? That is illogical.

we gunnies have been well-served by CA Republicans, haven't we?

That is because the Rep's have very limited power to do anything at all to help, and because the pro gun vote is split up it's not strong enough to provide much real value to Rep politicians. We have to solidify our vote and make them as dependent on our support as the Dem's are on the public employees. THAT is how you get around the examples of Chuck Quackenbush. Any Democrat that speaks out against teachers unions for example would be drummed out of office. It just doesn't happen, They do not go against their special interest because they are dependent on them. Far too many gun owners vote for democrats, we see them post here in this forum. That splits the vote up and you loose the power of a voting bloc. Pro gun rights supporters will never be successful like this, and your endorsement of Brown works against your own success.

dragonbait1a
05-10-2010, 10:22 AM
Vote for individuals NOT parties. If a candidate is for individual rights (and 2A is a good indicator of stance on individual rights) I Vote for that candidate.

The Republican Party is dying, being torn apart from the inside by "Business" politicians trying to change into a party that can live and the various factions separating and trying to promote their own agendas. The Republican Party's biggest strength was it's monolithic internal system, where the party would nullify infighting. When a Republican candidate got a significant lead in the presidential primaries, the other candidates ALL dropped out and threw their support behind the front runner. Vs the Democratic Party where the two front runners fought amongst themselves long into the election year.

Since the Democratic party is already a fractured, sprawling beast, it is significantly easier for members to hold views outside the Party Line and still get elected. Painting ANY group with a broad brush is a mistake. People are individuals, that the questions are "Where do they stand?" and "Are they their own candidate or a mouthpiece?" Voting a Party ticket is no good if you care about any specific issue. I care about freedom, I vote for Gun rights. If I've got Gun rights, then it's a heck of a lot easier to exercise other rights.

RGB

IrishPirate
05-10-2010, 10:30 AM
In the past, I've been aware of somewhat anti politicians who have changed course once the voted pro on some bill and got a ton of thank you notes, or local Members Council folks did effective outreach.

But when someone semipublicly insults the NRA reps, denounces them as rightwing rednecks (approximate wording) then a dead fish message needs to be sent.

Our only effective message in the state is "f***k with us and we rip you apart". We don't get that many opportunities to use it in CA so I'd hope a public display of dead meat would be exhibited.

Anyway, it's pretty irrelevant given the numbers - which would make refusal to respond to desperation even better.

We've all seen how screwed we've been by various folks making pro-gun pronouncements. So why should we believe someone who had an especial enmity for NRA and then is suddenly kissing our arse when he's 10+ points down?

bwiese for governor, 2010! :D







Not trying to slight you Bill, I agree with what you said. I'm glad I've got as much time as we do before November because it seems like it'll take that much time to cut through all the candidates BS and find out who they really are.

bwiese
05-10-2010, 10:59 AM
bwiese for governor, 2010! :D


No thanks, couldn't pay me enough.

gn3hz3ku1*
05-10-2010, 11:21 AM
Ad hominems are a weak way to argue a position. I am not a troll for Poizner or anyone else. It is interesting to note that you seem to dominate any thread that mentions Poizner, who is the one doing the trolling? Let's just not go down the path of insults and personal attacks, OK?

I think you are making a huge mistake offering support to Brown. Proponents of gun rights will never be successful splitting their votes up among different party's. The reason anti gun activists have been as successful as they have been is because they are unified behind the Democrats. It is the same with other special interest groups in this state such as public employees unions, teachers and nurses. They have a nice successful symbiotic relationship where each one supports the success of the other. Dem's are dependent on the support of the special interests to provide monetary support for campaigns and bodies on the street doing the work. The special interests are dependent on the favors granted to them by the Dem politicians that are elected, i.e. increasing the numbers of public employees, swelling the ranks of campaign contributors and sympathetic voters. Each one feeds the other and together they grow stronger and stronger. And you propose to support them? That is illogical.



That is because the Rep's have very limited power to do anything at all to help, and because the pro gun vote is split up it's not strong enough to provide much real value to Rep politicians. We have to solidify our vote and make them as dependent on our support as the Dem's are on the public employees. THAT is how you get around the examples of Chuck Quackenbush. Any Democrat that speaks out against teachers unions for example would be drummed out of office. It just doesn't happen, They do not go against their special interest because they are dependent on them. Far too many gun owners vote for democrats, we see them post here in this forum. That splits the vote up and you loose the power of a voting bloc. Pro gun rights supporters will never be successful like this, and your endorsement of Brown works against your own success.


i think he is talking about the fact that you just created an account...

quiet-wyatt
05-10-2010, 1:43 PM
Yes, I believe Mr. Brown has cryptolibertarian tendencies. He's also a cheapskate and at least in this area doesn't seem to care for stupid laws.
He's also had a 25 year period of making pro-gun statements even if it didn't help him. He's said, "it's not NRA members holding up liquor stores in Oakland" and has made numerous past references in public as to the 2nd amendment being
a fundamental individual right.
As AG, a lot of antigun drama just up & quit:

AG Brown filed a hugely significant amicus brief for McDonald encouraging incorporation of
2nd Amednment - represented the largest state in Union/7th largest economy in world.
All other stances in that amicus brief were just cover verbiage.
Stopped an antigun brief from going out for Heller v. DC

DOJ Firearms Division head Randy Rossi chose to rapidly find "other opportunities" in early 2007.
Alison Merrilees was essentially fired a few weeks ago.
Iggy Chinn fired (or door was 1/4" away from his arse when he left).
DOJ Firearms Division downsized to a Bureau.
Microstamping dead and likely unrevivable.



Various new regulations stopped (redefinition of 'detachable mag' etc.)
Did not support CFLC idiocy. AG and even bureacracy appear to support reform for
burdensome process that does not result in any crime stoppage.
Helped quietly intervene in trying to stop AB962.
Stopped DOJ agent interference in local cases and on certain FFL attacks, which then died.
Some cases awaiting DOJ testimony just didn't get any DOJ attention and all of a sudden
'went away'.
No support for Contos case: Alison skewered herself and left to hang; couldn't make an
"AG case" and had to shop it to local prosecutors.
Let 250+K OLLs flourish and market to continue unabated.
.
DOJ Firearms Bureau a skeleton now - mostly running DROSes & keeping guns from felons now, which is fine.


I'm usually silent on the the 2A forum, but here goes...

Mr. Wiese listed SPECIFIC things that Jerry Brown has done to PROTECT our gun rights - Statewide AND Nationally.

No other candidate even comes CLOSE to a CONSISTENT pro-gun stance.

Seems pretty clear to me who the best pro-gun (or non-anti-gun, if you will) candidate is.

'Nuff said for me...

quiet-wyatt
05-10-2010, 1:56 PM
Vote for individuals NOT parties. If a candidate is for individual rights (and 2A is a good indicator of stance on individual rights) I Vote for that candidate.

.......

I care about freedom, I vote for Gun rights. If I've got Gun rights, then it's a heck of a lot easier to exercise other rights.
RGB

+ 1

TTT
05-10-2010, 8:10 PM
And make no mistake about it, when it comes to preservation of gun rights (most individual rights), Democrats are the enemy.

Amen. The ‘D’ after Brown’s name says everything.

OleCuss
05-10-2010, 8:42 PM
I'm just curious as to whether y'all read the list of things Brown has actually done? (posted by bwiese)

I dunno, maybe I'm dense but in this governors race I see Whitman opposed to the RKBA and Poizner who at least was an opponent to the RKBA (may have converted) running against Brown.

Brown may have done more for gun rights in California than any other single politician in the last 20-30 years.

In this case, I don't think the "D" or the "R" explains the stance on the RKBA.

quiet-wyatt
05-10-2010, 8:47 PM
I'm just curious as to whether y'all read the list of things Brown has actually done? (posted by bwiese)

I dunno, maybe I'm dense but in this governors race I see Whitman opposed to the RKBA and Poizner who at least was an opponent to the RKBA (may have converted) running against Brown.

Brown may have done more for gun rights in California than any other single politician in the last 20-30 years.

In this case, I don't the the "D" or the "R" explains the stance on the RKBA.

Exactly...

OleCuss
05-11-2010, 1:00 PM
Back in Post #9 I mentioned that I'd invited Poizner to go to the range with a number of people. Figured it'd be a good way to educate him about us and us about him.

Well, nowhere in my e-mail did I ask about his 2A stance or position on anything. Yep, you guessed it, I got the exact same boilerplate e-mail everyone else has been getting about his 2A stance.

Kinda insulting - but not at all surprising.

OleCuss
05-11-2010, 1:10 PM
Almost more for the fun of it than anything else I replied as follows. And no, I really don't expect to get a reply which is truly responsive. . .

I'm sorry, I think you must not have bothered to actually read my initial e-mail. Nowhere in my e-mail did I ask about Mr. Poizner's position on gun rights, the 2nd Amendment, or any other policy position of his.

I offered to help him set up a meeting in a venue that he may or may not find congenial - which might garner the support of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of voters.

A simple, "No, Mr. Poizner has too many other engagements of higher priority" would be fine. "No" would be fine as well.

I'd even accept something which said, "I'm not going to read all that!".

Boilerplate e-mails which ignore the substance of my missive and address something else are just insulting.

Big E
05-11-2010, 4:08 PM
Back in Post #9 I mentioned that I'd invited Poizner to go to the range with a number of people. Figured it'd be a good way to educate him about us and us about him.

Well, nowhere in my e-mail did I ask about his 2A stance or position on anything. Yep, you guessed it, I got the exact same boilerplate e-mail everyone else has been getting about his 2A stance.

Kinda insulting - but not at all surprising.

Kind of the point in my post (#10) that followed yours suggesting we were seeing boilerplate replies. I'm glad you replied back, too bad you can't be sure Piozner sees it.

TTT
05-11-2010, 7:06 PM
I'm just curious as to whether y'all read the list of things Brown has actually done?

Yup, all the things on the list save one can be explained by bwiese’s assertion that Brown is a cheapskate and doesn’t like stupid laws- just because he ditched incompetent employees and reeled in an out of control department doesn’t mean he is pro-gun, he could just be an ethical bureaucrat. As for Brown’s brief in McDonald, I note that in the (now vacated) Nordyke decision, the left-wing court gave significant lip service to the 2nd before claiming that local governments can ban firearm possession essentially everywhere in public without infringing it.:rolleyes: Talk doesn’t mean much.

You don’t serve the Democratic Party for 40 years unless you are a committed communitarian. Communitarianism rejects both self-reliance and individual accountability- there are no ‘pro-gun’ communitarians.

quiet-wyatt
05-11-2010, 7:17 PM
Yup, all the things on the list save one can be explained by bwiese’s assertion that Brown is a cheapskate and doesn’t like stupid laws- just because he ditched incompetent employees and reeled in an out of control department doesn’t mean he is pro-gun, he could just be an ethical bureaucrat. As for Brown’s brief in McDonald, I note that in the (now vacated) Nordyke decision, the left-wing court gave significant lip service to the 2nd before claiming that local governments can ban firearm possession essentially everywhere in public without infringing it.:rolleyes: Talk doesn’t mean much.

You don’t serve the Democratic Party for 40 years unless you are a committed communitarian. Communitarianism rejects both self-reliance and individual accountability- there are no ‘pro-gun’ communitarians.

And yet, he's the least hostile to the 2nd Amendment of all the candidates based on what he's actually done - not just lip-service in an election year...

OleCuss
05-12-2010, 4:21 AM
Yup, all the things on the list save one can be explained by bwiese’s assertion that Brown is a cheapskate and doesn’t like stupid laws- just because he ditched incompetent employees and reeled in an out of control department doesn’t mean he is pro-gun, he could just be an ethical bureaucrat. As for Brown’s brief in McDonald, I note that in the (now vacated) Nordyke decision, the left-wing court gave significant lip service to the 2nd before claiming that local governments can ban firearm possession essentially everywhere in public without infringing it.:rolleyes: Talk doesn’t mean much.

You don’t serve the Democratic Party for 40 years unless you are a committed communitarian. Communitarianism rejects both self-reliance and individual accountability- there are no ‘pro-gun’ communitarians.

Glad you read it. My interpretation varies a bit from yours.

I kinda view it as a possible INO situation. I think Whitman is a RINO and likely would be a better fit in the Demorat party. I suspect Brown is now a DINO and would likely fit about as well into the Libertarian party (not a real good fit in any of the parties).

We'll likely find out whether it is the truth for one of them.

chuckles48
05-12-2010, 8:12 AM
i think he is talking about the fact that you just created an account...

Out of the mouths of babes...

Attacking the poster, rather than the argument, never really ends well. Generally, it's considered a telltale sign of a weak argument.

As a lawyer friend of mine once said: "if the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. And if neither is on your side, pound the table."

gn3hz3ku1*
05-12-2010, 9:30 AM
Out of the mouths of babes...

Attacking the poster, rather than the argument, never really ends well. Generally, it's considered a telltale sign of a weak argument.

As a lawyer friend of mine once said: "if the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. And if neither is on your side, pound the table."

i dont know who you're talking about but i'm voting for Poizner

Sgt Raven
05-12-2010, 10:49 AM
i dont know who you're talking about but i'm voting for Poizner

Chuckie and Bill went round and round when Chuckie was pushing Tom Campbell as his choice for Governor. :TFH:

Midtown Gunner
05-12-2010, 1:26 PM
I'm usually silent on the the 2A forum, but here goes...

Mr. Wiese listed SPECIFIC things that Jerry Brown has done to PROTECT our gun rights - Statewide AND Nationally.
No other candidate even comes CLOSE to a CONSISTENT pro-gun stance.
Seems pretty clear to me who the best pro-gun (or non-anti-gun, if you will) candidate is.

And, he's the only one with any chance of running this latrine of a state. Poizner has little experience. And Whitman? She's got less experience than Sarah Palin and less charisma than Edwin Meese. And her corporate experience was running eBay. One of the most anti-gun corporations of the last decade.

quiet-wyatt
05-12-2010, 2:05 PM
And, he's the only one with any chance of running this latrine of a state. Poizner has little experience. And Whitman? She's got less experience than Sarah Palin and less charisma than Edwin Meese. And her corporate experience was running eBay. One of the most anti-gun corporations of the last decade.

Exactly...

GnarlyMilk
05-12-2010, 2:26 PM
Bwise - So, care to share who your voting for and why?

5shot
05-12-2010, 2:29 PM
And yet, he's the least hostile to the 2nd Amendment of all the candidates based on what he's actually done - not just lip-service in an election year...

Jerry Brown has never been, or is he now pro 2nd amendment. His filing a brief in support of the McDonald case has nothing to do with supporting the 2nd amendment. It's all about money.
Brown is the Attorney General. The Ca. Attorney General's office is responsible for defending the state in all appeals and challenges to state laws.
If McDonald becomes the law of the land, then many of Ca's gun laws become moot, and no longer have to be defended and opined by the Ca. Attorney General. This means cost cuts to the agency, and makes the attorney general look like a fiscal conservative.

Personnel and work hours all translates to money. If Brown can cut back on his Bureau of Firearms, he can either save the money, or spend it on pursuing environmental causes or other pet projects.

bwiese
05-12-2010, 3:25 PM
Personnel and work hours all translates to money. If Brown can cut back on his Bureau of Firearms, he can either save the money, or spend it on pursuing environmental causes or other pet projects.

#1. So who cares, as long as the end result is de facto pro-gun?

#2. You are misinformed.

OleCuss
05-12-2010, 3:29 PM
Jerry Brown has never been, or is he now pro 2nd amendment. His filing a brief in support of the McDonald case has nothing to do with supporting the 2nd amendment. It's all about money.
Brown is the Attorney General. The Ca. Attorney General's office is responsible for defending the state in all appeals and challenges to state laws.
If McDonald becomes the law of the land, then many of Ca's gun laws become moot, and no longer have to be defended and opined by the Ca. Attorney General. This means cost cuts to the agency, and makes the attorney general look like a fiscal conservative.

Personnel and work hours all translates to money. If Brown can cut back on his Bureau of Firearms, he can either save the money, or spend it on pursuing environmental causes or other pet projects.

I'm sorry, but I really have trouble with your speculation as to his motive. As AG he has some leeway as to what he will prosecute and what he will not. I seriously doubt that he'll save much money by having filed a RKBA-supporting brief in McDonald.

Even if he did, then the assumption would be that Brown believes that what are currently classified as gun crimes within the State of California are just not nearly as big a deal as violent crimes and the like - and the state shouldn't be bothering to make them illegal and to prosecute them. That actually is supporting the RKBA in at least a limited degree and still beats the heck out of what Whitman would do or what Poizner probably would do!

But even if we believe that you are correct in your speculation and assume that Jerry Brown's goal in government is to cut out wasteful laws, regulations, and bureaucracies - then you would seem to be suggesting Jerry Brown is at least a fiscal conservative or maybe a Libertarian? True conservatives and Libertarians are believers in the RKBA - so Jerry Brown might have a philosophical tendency to support the RKBA.

So if I go with your speculation I'd have to say that Jerry Brown is at least a fiscal conservative. Furthermore, since he is demonstrably more interested in cutting the regulations and laws with regard to the RKBA than are either Poizner or Whitman, he would appear to be more fiscally conservative than are Poizner and Whitman.

Anyway I slice it I come up with Brown as being the best candidate at this time. I still have some hope for Poizner but he seems reluctant to really make any RKBA sympathy very clear.

dragonbait1a
05-12-2010, 4:07 PM
Personnel and work hours all translates to money. If Brown can cut back on his Bureau of Firearms, he can either save the money, or spend it on pursuing environmental causes or other pet projects.

DOUBLE WIN! Less gun laws, less Overzealous enforcement and support of renewable energy? If true this would be a POSITIVE thing.

I have no idea if its true, but the anti-stupid enforcement and anti-dumb laws seems pretty set in stone.

All the arguments that the Poizner people bring up make me happier to support Brown

RGB

5shot
05-12-2010, 5:15 PM
No, I don't think I'm "misinformed". I've worked in government service in California for 38 years, including a large D.A's office from 1981 to 2004. I've worked closely with the DOJ (AG's office) many times during that time period. I know Brown wasn't the AG until recently, but I learned how the AG's office operates, and knew a lot of their people. In fact I turned down a job offer from them in 87.
Brown is a liberal, but not stupid. He's been a lawyer since the 60's. He know's that there is a very strong likelihood that the McDonald case will prevail, with or without his supportive brief. But filing the brief, and looking pro-gun without really being pro-gun will buy conservative votes in a state that may finally be fed up with liberal spending and laws. He's 71, so he doesn't need to worry about being re-elected to a 2nd term.

The AG's legal staff is not that big, since the County D.A.'s and Cities Attorney's prosecute over 95% of the criminal cases in Calif. But the AG has to research new STATE laws and give a legal opinion on them and any challenges to them.
The budget of most public agencies is around 70-90% personnel wages and benefits. The attorneys (Asst. Attorney Generals) employed by the AG/DOJ make well over $150,000 a year in wages and benefits. Calif is possibly in the worst fiscal shape of it's history. Being able to shift 10-20% of your staff away from something that is now a Federal issue allows the AG to either cut personnel, or pursue another agenda. Cutting personnel would be good, but pursuing more business destroying issues is not. But that will be up to the next AG.

Nothing Brown, Whitman, or Poizner do will have the effect on gun laws in this state that the McDonald case will have.
The democratic party which Brown has been a long time leading member of controls the state legislature. The same legislature that has destroyed gun rights, run businesses out of the state, and ignored illegal immigration's rape of our public services and economy.
And all the Governor has is veto power, which can be over ruled by the legislature. Gun rights in this state can only be improved by a total purge of the state legislature, or thru SCOTUS.
So if the governor's hands are tied, do you want a governor from the party that destroyed gun rights in this state? Who's more likely to sign democratic legislation, a democrat or republican?
No politician or corporate executive is without sin. But I believe that a republican one is the lesser of the 3 evils.

OleCuss
05-12-2010, 7:44 PM
OK, I'm not a lawyer and have had minimal interaction with the DOJ, so please correct me if I am far off-base.

But as I see it, Brown is not going to be AG for much longer. McDonald will get handed down and re-arrange the deck chairs and the legislature will get busy trying to enshrine the same restrictions in new laws they think will be compliant with McDonald. Various lawsuits will come down the pike challenging a number of restrictions and invoking McDonald either directly or indirectly. By the time it all gets sorted out Brown won't be the AG - most likely he'll be Governor.

But in the meantime Brown will not be able to downsize his department based on McDonald, Sykes, Peruta, etc. He'll be having to deal with them and have his staff working overtime on various legislative maneuvers until the end of his time as the AG.

So any downsizing will happen on the next AG's watch. Not a whole lot of political benefit to Brown from this - although there will be benefit to the State.

I'd also note that IIRC the Firearms portion of the DOJ was downsized/downgraded before the brief to SCOTUS? It would seem a little odd to me to argue that he went to SCOTUS to get a ruling that would allow him to do the downsizing he'd already done?

Anyway, the thing that gets me the most is that Gene Hoffman, Artherd, bwiese, and others who live and breathe this stuff and have regular dealings with the DOJ and with people who have been messed over by the DOJ, and have had significant discussions with Brown - would be considered less able to judge Brown's motivations or commitments than those of us who have not met him, have not dealt with his minions, have not observed any interventions Brown may have made in the way staff behaves, and probably have not read his brief to SCOTUS.

One other thing. I would truly be shocked if Whitman did not sign almost any legislation restricting RKBA. She will be so out of her comfort zone that she will use her willingness to destroy the RKBA that she will use it as a bargaining chip to get whatever else she might want.

Understand, Whitman's own position statements make it clear that she will consider more restrictive gun laws in the future. Go to her website and parse her statement - very easy to read it as she believes further gun laws may be necessary in the future, just not now.

FWIW from a non-lawyer, non-DOJ frequenter, and non-politician.

5shot
05-12-2010, 8:42 PM
OK, I'm not a lawyer and have had minimal interaction with the DOJ, so please correct me if I am far off-base.

But as I see it, Brown is not going to be AG for much longer. McDonald will get handed down and re-arrange the deck chairs and the legislature will get busy trying to enshrine the same restrictions in new laws they think will be compliant with McDonald. Various lawsuits will come down the pike challenging a number of restrictions and invoking McDonald either directly or indirectly. By the time it all gets sorted out Brown won't be the AG - most likely he'll be Governor.

But in the meantime Brown will not be able to downsize his department based on McDonald, Sykes, Peruta, etc. He'll be having to deal with them and have his staff working overtime on various legislative maneuvers until the end of his time as the AG.

So any downsizing will happen on the next AG's watch. Not a whole lot of political benefit to Brown from this - although there will be benefit to the State.




Like I said, "He know's that there is a very strong likelihood that the McDonald case will prevail, with or without his supportive brief. But filing the brief, and looking pro-gun without really being pro-gun will buy conservative votes in a state that may finally be fed up with liberal spending and laws. He's 71, so he doesn't need to worry about being re-elected to a 2nd term." He just needs to convince people in the coming months that he's a changed man, and is now pro-gun, and a fiscal conservative.

Quote's from Brown's concerning his brief:
"California has been a national leader in passing commonsense legislation to regulate firearms". He may think so, I don't.
"California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes." California gun owners want a lot more then the right to have a "handgun in their home".


I'd also note that IIRC the Firearms portion of the DOJ was downsized/downgraded before the brief to SCOTUS? It would seem a little odd to me to argue that he went to SCOTUS to get a ruling that would allow him to do the downsizing he'd already done?


Look at the states economy. Every state, county, city, school district, has downsized. In a DA's office and AG's office there are units that actually make money thru civil prosecutions, and asset forfeitures. And there are units that are funded thru federal grants. These units are the last one's to be cut. The attorneys and special agents in the Bureau of Firearms are not federally funded and do not generate income for the state. But the lab techs who do the testing for the safety roster do make the state money. I wonder if any of them were cut? And if they were, who does that hurt? The gun manufactures and buyers.


Anyway, the thing that gets me the most is that Gene Hoffman, Artherd, bwiese, and others who live and breathe this stuff and have regular dealings with the DOJ and with people who have been messed over by the DOJ, and have had significant discussions with Brown - would be considered less able to judge Brown's motivations or commitments than those of us who have not met him, have not dealt with his minions, have not observed any interventions Brown may have made in the way staff behaves, and probably have not read his brief to SCOTUS.


Well, many of us in law enforcement lived and breathed public safety issues. We were the ones that led the fight to correct Brown's screw ups in his first go as Gov.
Like recalling Rose Bird and the rest of the liberal State Supreme court justices that brown appointed. The ones who took away California's death penalty for 10 years. Brown's the reason people like Charlie Manson and many others are still breathing air and living on the public dime.
Then there was the fight for the "Victims Bill of Rights". Again to fight the liberal pro-criminal rights rulings that had come from the Brown appointees.
Brown and his appointee's (both supreme court and appellate court) policies have contributed significantly to the crime and immigration problems we have today in this state.



One other thing. I would truly be shocked if Whitman did not sign almost any legislation restricting RKBA. She will be so out of her comfort zone that she will use her willingness to destroy the RKBA that she will use it as a bargaining chip to get whatever else she might want.

Understand, Whitman's own position statements make it clear that she will consider more restrictive gun laws in the future. Go to her website and parse her statement - very easy to read it as she believes further gun laws may be necessary in the future, just not now.

FWIW from a non-lawyer, non-DOJ frequenter, and non-politician.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was a Whitman supporter. I'M NOT.
I know people have been writing Poizner off because Whitman's money bought her a early 50 point lead in the polls. But as of this week, her lead is only 2 points. So don't write off Poizner just yet.

OleCuss
05-13-2010, 3:47 AM
Thank you for your kind response. I really appreciate it.

I'm especially happy to hear that Poizner may have a real chance of beating Whitman. I'd like to have a choice in November. And, OK, I don't trust Poizner on the RKBA but I think there is at least a chance that he won't be awful.

OleCuss
05-13-2010, 5:30 AM
Went to Poizner's site. He's only making a claim of an 8 point separation from Whitman: http://stevepoizner.com/blog/category/blog/

Could you point me to the poll showing only a 2 point separation? I would really enjoy having documentation that there is only that small a separation in the polls.

TTT
05-13-2010, 5:35 AM
And yet, he's the least hostile to the 2nd Amendment of all the candidates based on what he's actually done - not just lip-service in an election year...

Fair enough…but also not saying much.

I suspect Brown is now a DINO and would likely fit about as well into the Libertarian party…

Communitarianism is the political opposite of libertarianism- the idea that a leader in the foremost communitarian organization in the country is secretly a libertarian seems a trifle farfetched.

Johnny661
05-13-2010, 7:24 AM
Went to Poizner's site. He's only making a claim of an 8 point separation from Whitman: http://stevepoizner.com/blog/category/blog/

Could you point me to the poll showing only a 2 point separation? I would really enjoy having documentation that there is only that small a separation in the polls.

Per the link that you attached it states that:
Whitman 39% Poizner 37%

hasserl
05-13-2010, 7:28 AM
Communitarianism is the political opposite of libertarianism- the idea that a leader in the foremost communitarian organization in the country is secretly a libertarian seems a trifle farfetched.

LOL! Good one. The twisted pretzel logic the Brown supporters go thru to rationalize their support of him is amazing.

OleCuss
05-13-2010, 7:41 AM
.
.
.
Communitarianism is the political opposite of libertarianism- the idea that a leader in the foremost communitarian organization in the country is secretly a libertarian seems a trifle farfetched.

I think you're ignoring what I actually said. You're also ignoring the fact that Brown does not particularly seem to toe the Demorat party line. He certainly doesn't fit in where the RKBA is concerned.

Edit: I'm not a fan of the term "communitarianism". The Democrat party is largely fascist and, IMHO, should be referred to as such.

5shot
05-13-2010, 9:59 AM
Fair enough…but also not saying much.



Communitarianism is the political opposite of libertarianism- the idea that a leader in the foremost communitarian organization in the country is secretly a libertarian seems a trifle farfetched.


It was a poll that Channel 7 Eyewitness News announced on their broadcasts earlier this week. They even interviewed Whitman about her reaction to the poll results.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics/local_elections&id=7433973

stitchnicklas
05-13-2010, 10:08 AM
the goc website just endorsed poizner today.........:beatdeadhorse5:

bwiese
05-13-2010, 10:22 AM
the goc website just endorsed poizner today.........:beatdeadhorse5:

When has GOC's recommendation been about being truly pro-gun, as opposed to about "other baggage"?

OleCuss
05-13-2010, 10:45 AM
I'm curious. Where might one find the GOC questionnaire which Poizner filled out? Also, any reports on the conversations they claim they had with him?

kcbrown
05-13-2010, 2:21 PM
Like recalling Rose Bird and the rest of the liberal State Supreme court justices that brown appointed. The ones who took away California's death penalty for 10 years. Brown's the reason people like Charlie Manson and many others are still breathing air and living on the public dime.


I've never really understood the "conservative" (or whatever) leanings towards favoring the death penalty. You want to give the power to take the lives of the citizenry to the state? The state??

Sorry, but just as we have "innocent until proven guilty", the right to a trial by the jury of your peers, the right to be secure in your papers and effects, and all sorts of other rights and protections in order to minimize the chance that an innocent person is unjustly incarcerated, so should we have prohibitions against the death penalty in order to ensure that the "final solution" is not enacted against an innocent man.

It's one thing to incarcerate an innocent man. That's bad enough, and much of the "inconvenient" machinery that a number of you appear to rail against is there to keep you from being unjustly incarcerated. But at least incarceration isn't necessarily a permanent condition.

Death is permanent. There is no rescinding it, no recompense for it, and no consolation for it. The death of an innocent man at the hands of the state is inexcusable and insufferable.

And you would make such a thing possible in order to save money??


There are plenty of countries that don't bother with such "luxuries" as rights and protections. They are very efficient at eliminating criminals from the population. Feel free to go to such a country if you wish, but I doubt you'd like it. Why? Because the liberties and rights that stay the hand of the state make the state inefficient in dispensing justice. You cannot have true liberty without paying the price of "protecting" some criminals, because there is no such thing as perfect justice.

Liberty and justice are expensive, both in terms of resources and in terms of risk. Deal with it.

hasserl
05-13-2010, 2:39 PM
I've never really understood the "conservative" (or whatever) leanings towards favoring the death penalty. You want to give the power to take the lives of the citizenry to the state? The state??

Sorry, but just as we have "innocent until proven guilty", the right to a trial by the jury of your peers, the right to be secure in your papers and effects, and all sorts of other rights and protections in order to minimize the chance that an innocent person is unjustly incarcerated, so should we have prohibitions against the death penalty in order to ensure that the "final solution" is not enacted against an innocent man.

It's one thing to incarcerate an innocent man. That's bad enough, and much of the "inconvenient" machinery that a number of you appear to rail against is there to keep you from being unjustly incarcerated. But at least incarceration isn't necessarily a permanent condition.

Death is permanent. There is no rescinding it, no recompense for it, and no consolation for it. The death of an innocent man at the hands of the state is inexcusable and insufferable.

And you would make such a thing possible in order to save money??


There are plenty of countries that don't bother with such "luxuries" as rights and protections. They are very efficient at eliminating criminals from the population. Feel free to go to such a country if you wish, but I doubt you'd like it. Why? Because the liberties and rights that stay the hand of the state make the state inefficient in dispensing justice. You cannot have true liberty without paying the price of "protecting" some criminals, because there is no such thing as perfect justice.

Liberty and justice are expensive, both in terms of resources and in terms of risk. Deal with it.

There is one problem with your rational, capital punishment is the law. When jurists overturn a law or circumvent it's implementation because they have a differing political viewpoint, that is called judicial activism, and it is a court usurping power not granted to it by the constitution (state in this case, but could be federal just the same). If you don't like the law then work to have it changed via the legislative, or initiative process, not via judicial activism.

hasserl
05-13-2010, 2:43 PM
When has GOC's recommendation been about being truly pro-gun, as opposed to about "other baggage"?

This exemplifies the ridiculousness of this thread. You dismiss anyone with a differing POV, only your's is valid. It all revolves around a personal hatred. Hate is a nasty thing, it is generally well to try to avoid it. In this case hate is blinding you to reason, and your taking others down the road to repressive government hell along with you. Shameful, truly shameful.

kcbrown
05-13-2010, 2:57 PM
There is one problem with your rational, capital punishment is the law. When jurists overturn a law or circumvent it's implementation because they have a differing political viewpoint, that is called judicial activism, and it is a court usurping power not granted to it by the constitution (state in this case, but could be federal just the same). If you don't like the law then work to have it changed via the legislative, or initiative process, not via judicial activism.

If the court overturns a law on the basis of it being Unconstitutional, is that "judicial activism"?

Are you going to try to argue that because the right to life isn't enshrined in the Constitution, that we don't have it?

The right to life is absolutely, positively the most important one we have. Without it, we have nothing. The prohibition against murder derives directly from that right. The right to keep and bear arms in part indirectly derives from it.

If you wish to view the court's decision to overturn capital punishment as mere "judicial activism" then that is certainly your right, but that also illustrates an inconsistency in your viewpoint (namely that you would view overturning a capital punishment law on the basis of it violating the right to life as "judicial activism" whereas you would view overturning a gun control law on the basis of it violating the right to keep and bear arms as "the court doing its job").

I urge you to stop picking and choosing which rights you would support on the basis of your own personal preferences, and to instead support real liberty for all (which comes at the price of risk and inconvenience).

5shot
05-13-2010, 3:21 PM
That's a pretty good stretch, using the constitution to support banning capital punishment. Have you found writings by the authors of the Bill of Rights that lead you to believe that they wanted a stop to legal executions?

hasserl
05-13-2010, 3:23 PM
If the court overturns a law on the basis of it being Unconstitutional, is that "judicial activism"?

It certainly can be, it depends on the facts surrounding the case.

Are you going to try to argue that because the right to life isn't enshrined in the Constitution, that we don't have it?

The right to life is absolutely, positively the most important one we have. Without it, we have nothing. The prohibition against murder derives directly from that right. The right to keep and bear arms in part indirectly derives from it.

If you wish to view the court's decision to overturn capital punishment as mere "judicial activism" then that is certainly your right, but that also illustrates an inconsistency in your viewpoint (namely that you would view overturning a capital punishment law on the basis of it violating the right to life as "judicial activism" whereas you would view overturning a gun control law on the basis of it violating the right to keep and bear arms as "the court doing its job").

I urge you to stop picking and choosing which rights you would support on the basis of your own personal preferences, and to instead support real liberty for all (which comes at the price of risk and inconvenience).

And I would urge you to not compare apples to oranges. Capital punishment has been an accepted form of punishment for certain crimes since before the founding of this country and ever since. The founders that wrote the constitution were clearly aware of and familiar with capital punishment. Can you provide any proof that there was any intent by them to preclude the practice of capital punishment? I don't think you can, because it doesn't exist, because it is not unconstitutional except in the minds of people that wish it to be.

The right to keep and bear arms is specifically retained in the constitution, do you want me to find it for you?

But this really digresses from the thread topic, perhaps it'd be best to give it its own thread if this is such an emotionally important issue to you.

bwiese
05-13-2010, 3:26 PM
This exemplifies the ridiculousness of this thread. You dismiss anyone with a differing POV, only your's is valid. It all revolves around a personal hatred. Hate is a nasty thing, it is generally well to try to avoid it. In this case hate is blinding you to reason, and your taking others down the road to repressive government hell along with you. Shameful, truly shameful.

Hey noob, read a bit. It's not hate, it's reason.

GOC incompetence brought us AB821 lead ammo bill and AB1471 microstamping.

The search function does work.

And WTF do you mean by assuming I represenct 'repressive government' by opposing some GOC idiocy?

warbird
05-13-2010, 3:48 PM
I have to agree with 5-shot on the AG 's office and their function. Years ago I worked with them on medical cases and if you handed them a win they would take it and they would come out on the side they thought was going to be the winner when the state was involved. I can't see brown endorsing or coming out for gun rights and neither can I see Whitman doing it. We have a sorry choice for governor among the three main candidates but I have to gamble on Poiszner since I know the other two will not do anything to restore our rights and will in all likelyhood diminish them. The gun rights people cannot give brown more support than the democratic machine and he will abide by what they want and that is more restrictive gun laws. Get you ammo and guns this year because next year you won't be getting anything in this state if brown or Whitman win. Whitman buys her way into things and Brown will kiss the brown you know what to stay in office especially if he wants a double term with democratic support. To get that he has to abandon gun rights. Look at your legislature and you know I am right.

hasserl
05-13-2010, 3:56 PM
Hey noob, read a bit. It's not hate, it's reason.

GOC incompetence brought us AB821 lead ammo bill and AB1471 microstamping.

The search function does work.

And WTF do you mean by assuming I represenct 'repressive government' by opposing some GOC idiocy?

More name calling. It shows you stance is illogical and weakly rationalized when you have to resort to ad hominems.

Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that Brown received an F grade from the NRA, you dismissed that. Also in this thread it was shown how you got the story about the Gov Moonbeam name wrong, you dismissed that. NOw the GOC supports Poizner, you dismiss that. It's a pattern with you, anyone posts anything that goes against your position you blow it off as irrelevant. You're actions are irrational and appear to be guided by hatred for Poizner because he dissed a friend of yours and according to you the NRA some time ago. So you've harbored this hatred since then and now's your chance to stick it to him. Never mind what that does to the state of the State. It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Repressive government, look it up (google works):

"A repressive government is one that restricts people's freedom and controls them by using force. "

By supporting a Democrat for governor you support the furthering of repressive State government.

kcbrown
05-13-2010, 4:17 PM
It certainly can be, it depends on the facts surrounding the case.



And I would urge you to not compare apples to oranges. Capital punishment has been an accepted form of punishment for certain crimes since before the founding of this country and ever since. The founders that wrote the constitution were clearly aware of and familiar with capital punishment. Can you provide any proof that there was any intent by them to preclude the practice of capital punishment? I don't think you can, because it doesn't exist, because it is not unconstitutional except in the minds of people that wish it to be.

The right to keep and bear arms is specifically retained in the constitution, do you want me to find it for you?

But this really digresses from the thread topic, perhaps it'd be best to give it its own thread if this is such an emotionally important issue to you.

That's a pretty good stretch, using the constitution to support banning capital punishment. Have you found writings by the authors of the Bill of Rights that lead you to believe that they wanted a stop to legal executions?


I see that my mention of the courts declaring something Unconstitutional as being something that some might regard as "judicial activism" has caused more confusion than enlightenment...

Let me ask you a very simple question: do you believe you have the right to life or not?

If you don't believe you have that right then we are done with this discussion, but the lack of a belief in that right turns your support for RKBA from something foundational into something quite a lot more arbitrary. To wit, you remove self-defense as a reason for RKBA to be a right, since self-defense is a justification for RKBA only because self-defense itself is a right, and that is a right only because the right to life exists. Without the right to life, you haven't the right to self-defense, and without the right to self-defense, you haven't the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of self-defense. So at most you're left with preservation of a free state as a foundational reason for RKBA.

If you do believe you have the right to your own life then you must accept the consequences. One of the consequences is that capital punishment is unjust, because it fails strict scrutiny against the right to life. It fails strict scrutiny because you cannot demonstrate a compelling situation in which permanent incarceration doesn't achieve the same necessary societal safety as capital punishment. And permanent incarceration is a smaller infringement on the rights of the individual than capital punishment is, so capital punishment does not pass the "least restrictive means" requirement of strict scrutiny.


I haven't read anything by the founders on the subject of capital punishment, but I cannot help it if the founders themselves were inconsistent in their application of the concept of rights. The founders did not put prohibitions against slavery into the Constitution. Would you argue, therefore, that slavery should be permissible?


Finally, recall the 9th Amendment to the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that Amendment to be a mere joke? I submit to you that if any right is covered by the Constitution through the 9th Amendment, the right to life most certainly is.

ja308
05-13-2010, 4:18 PM
I appreciate all the discussion here .
In reading Nixons 1991 book "sieze the moment" one fact kept coming back to haunt some of Nixons idea's.
The fear He would alienate the base. If we gunnies give enough support to put Poizner in the general election against Brown. He may think of us as his base.
Unfortunately, Brown could never have this dilemma.
JA308

hasserl
05-13-2010, 4:47 PM
Let me ask you a very simple question: do you believe you have the right to life or not?

Of course, I never said I didn't, or that the right did not exist. I also have the RKBA. However, in certain circumstances I can forfeit those rights, no? The same is true of many rights. If I commit any of a number of crimes my right to be free is forfeited. Is it not? Do you not support the incarceration of criminals? In some cases my right to free speech is restricted and could even be eliminated. Right? Or do you not support restricting the freedom to incite a riot or to the freedom to conspire to commit treason? Or any number of possible scenarios.

If I commit the crime of murder the state has the right to inflict capital punishment. That is not a contrary or irrational position. Again I ask you, can you find anything that shows the founders intended to preclude the practice of capital punishment? Anything?

kcbrown
05-13-2010, 5:01 PM
Of course, I never said I didn't, or that the right did not exist. I also have the RKBA. However, in certain circumstances I can forfeit those rights, no? The same is true of many rights. If I commit any of a number of crimes my right to be free is forfeited. Is it not? Do you not support the incarceration of criminals? In some cases my right to free speech is restricted and could even be eliminated. Right? Or do you not support restricting the freedom to incite a riot or to the freedom to conspire to commit treason? Or any number of possible scenarios.


Yes, but the right to life is the only one which, if infringed, cannot later be corrected or redressed. That makes avoidance of such infringement especially important.



If I commit the crime of murder the state has the right to inflict capital punishment. That is not a contrary or irrational position.
Really? I find it to be quite contrary in the face of the right to life. If life were merely a privilege then I might be inclined to agree with you, but again, the fact that the right to life is a right (and a very fundamental one at that) has consequences, one of which is that it cannot be infringed upon unless no other, less restrictive, means of achieving the same demonstrably necessary goal can be found.

The state doesn't have a right to do anything. It has powers explicitly given to it by the people. Nothing more. And those powers do not include infringement on the rights of the people unless the infringements in question meet certain standards of scrutiny. As I explained previously, the infringement on the right to life via capital punishment does not meet the necessary standards of scrutiny. Therefore, capital punishment is not a valid power of the state. This is the consequence of the right to life being a right.


Again I ask you, can you find anything that shows the founders intended to preclude the practice of capital punishment? Anything?And again, I have not found anything they've written on the subject. But even if the founders agreed with you, that does not lend legitimacy to your position in the face of what rights are. Again, I cannot help it if the founders themselves applied the concept of rights inconsistently.

Midian
05-13-2010, 5:06 PM
Jeebus.

bweise is just hitting a slew of home runs here.

After reading this thread filled with Mr Weise's reasoning and facts, plus Mr. Hoffman's legion of posts on where various CGF actions are at in order to help this skewered State out of the pungent unconstitutional hole into which is has crawled, I feel bad that I haven't given them a cent.

C-Note for you guys.

bwiese
05-13-2010, 5:21 PM
bweise is just hitting a slew of home runs here.

After reading this thread filled with Mr Weise's reasoning and facts, plus Mr. Hoffman's legion of posts on where various CGF actions are at in order to help this skewered State out of the pungent unconstitutional hole into which is has crawled, I feel bad that I haven't given them a cent.


Midian,

Thank you for kind words but please note statements above from Hoffman and myself are our individual opinions and do not and cannot represent any stance of CGF, The Calguns Foundation. However, our positions on the CGF board in no way suppress our right to speak out as individuals. My disclaimer at the bottom of each of my posts clarifies this.

CGF of course cannot offer backing of candidates or fund campaign matters (either support or attack).

In fact, CGF is actually suing the DOJ (and the Attorney General in his formal capacity). Additionally, there may (or may not) be other formal CGF action taken against the Ca DOJ/AG in the future.

In fact my personal postings here about Jerry Brown, vs. him being a target of CGF lawsuits, probably indicates I'm a functional schizophrenic.

hasserl
05-13-2010, 6:11 PM
Yes, but the right to life is the only one which, if infringed, cannot later be corrected or redressed. That makes avoidance of such infringement especially important.

Oh, can you give back time to a man that has spent his days behind bars for a crime he didn't commit?


Really? I find it to be quite contrary in the face of the right to life. If life were merely a privilege then I might be inclined to agree with you, but again, the fact that the right to life is a right (and a very fundamental one at that) has consequences, one of which is that it cannot be infringed upon unless no other, less restrictive, means of achieving the same demonstrably necessary goal can be found.

I already illustrated how rights can be voided.

The state doesn't have a right to do anything. It has powers explicitly given to it by the people. Nothing more. And those powers do not include infringement on the rights of the people unless the infringements in question meet certain standards of scrutiny. As I explained previously, the infringement on the right to life via capital punishment does not meet the necessary standards of scrutiny. Therefore, capital punishment is not a valid power of the state. This is the consequence of the right to life being a right.

You are right, the State has powers, not rights, my bad. But your position that capital punishment does not meet the necessary standards of scrutiny is an opinion, nothing more. If you believe your opinion to be the correct opinion that should be upheld you have a means of having that accomplished thru the legislative or initiative process. Go for it. BTW, can you provide any information of any rights group that shares your position and has acted to have it accepted as the norm? While there have been arguments about capital punishment being unconstitutional have been floated, the typical argument is that it is cruel and inhumane punishment, not that it is unconstitutional because it deprives one of the right to life. So, is this merely your interpretation or is there precedent?

And again, I have not found anything they've written on the subject. But even if the founders agreed with you, that does not lend legitimacy to your position in the face of what rights are. Again, I cannot help it if the founders themselves applied the concept of rights inconsistently.

It's not inconsistent, I've already showed you that. Along with rights come responsibilities. Rights can be voided under certain circumstances. Why do you not understand that? Re the founders intent and constitutionality, the intent of the authors of the constitution is paramount in interpreting it. It means what they intended it to mean when they authored it. Finding intangible rights in the constitution is the kind of hair-brained interpretation that brought us findings such as Roe v Wade. If you want a different law you have the means of effecting it. Use of the courts to enact legislation is judicial activism, and it is wrong and can only lead to misuse and usurpation of power.

kcbrown
05-13-2010, 7:29 PM
Oh, can you give back time to a man that has spent his days behind bars for a crime he didn't commit?


No, but you can redress the infringement after the fact, e.g. by paying the person or some other thing.

The point is that for infringements of the right to life, you have no options if you get it wrong.

That implies that the right to life needs greater protection than any other right. Do you disagree with that?



I already illustrated how rights can be voided.
Yes, but you clearly aren't getting what I'm saying: fundamental rights are lawfully voided only when the laws which void them pass strict scrutiny. Capital punishment does not pass that level of scrutiny.



You are right, the State has powers, not rights, my bad. But your position that capital punishment does not meet the necessary standards of scrutiny is an opinion, nothing more.
Of course. Even if we were talking about the opinion of the Supreme Court, it would still be an opinion.

The question is which of our opinions is more supportable. Your specific opinion has other side effects which you almost certainly have not considered (at least until now). And while it may even be consistent with that of the Supreme Court (in some times, in some ways), that does not imply that it is internally consistent.

For that matter, we all know that even the Supreme Court isn't consistent over time. Witness Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank.

You argue in favor of the death penalty, but in doing so you relegate the right to life to lesser status than the right to free speech (because the death penalty cannot withstand the honest application of strict scrutiny, so for you to support it anyway must mean that you believe it should not be subject to strict scrutiny), when it should be the other way around!


If you believe your opinion to be the correct opinion that should be upheld you have a means of having that accomplished thru the legislative or initiative process.
Scrutiny is a methodology applied by the courts, not the legislature. And some courts have found that some capital punishment laws are not Constitutional. That is precisely the thing you disagree with!

Your argument here is the equivalent of arguing that the courts shouldn't uphold the right to self-defense, or the right to privacy, or the right to travel, or any other unenumerated right because the people can get laws infringing upon those rights removed via legislative or initiative processes. Sorry, I don't buy it.



Go for it. BTW, can you provide any information of any rights group that shares your position and has acted to have it accepted as the norm?
There seem to be some rights groups that believe of the death penalty as I do, but I don't know if their basis is the same as mine.


While there have been arguments about capital punishment being unconstitutional have been floated, the typical argument is that it is cruel and inhumane punishment, not that it is unconstitutional because it deprives one of the right to life. So, is this merely your interpretation or is there precedent?
It's my interpretation. I have not seen evidence that the argument I put forth here has been used. My Google-fu doesn't appear to be good enough to pull up any such cases.

However, my interpretation is consistent with the definitions of scrutiny used by the courts when evaluating laws which may infringe upon fundamental rights.

Are you going to try to argue that infringements on the right to life should not be subject to strict scrutiny?? Are you going to try to argue that it does not deserve at least as much judicial protection as the right to free speech?

If you agree that infringements upon the right to life are (or should be) subject to strict scrutiny (if not an even stricter method of scrutiny!) then you must either agree with my evaluation or show where my logic is in error.


Most importantly, since the right to life is fundamental and you acknowledge it, it follows that it is your position which needs positive justification. You are, after all, arguing in favor of infringement!



It's not inconsistent, I've already showed you that. Along with rights come responsibilities. Rights can be voided under certain circumstances. Why do you not understand that?
Oh, I understand that perfectly fine, it's just that capital punishment does not meet the circumstantial requirements. Strict scrutiny is generally the means the courts use to determine whether or not a given law meets the circumstantial and evidentiary requirements of infringement of a fundamental right.



Re the founders intent and constitutionality, the intent of the authors of the constitution is paramount in interpreting it. It means what they intended it to mean when they authored it.
Yes, and clearly they intended that slavery should be allowed. So what?

The founders of the country were good, but they weren't perfect. Again, I cannot help it if they were inconsistent in applying the concept of rights.



Finding intangible rights in the constitution is the kind of hair-brained interpretation that brought us findings such as Roe v Wade.
Ah, so you do think the 9th Amendment is a joke.


If you want a different law you have the means of effecting it. Use of the courts to enact legislation is judicial activism, and it is wrong and can only lead to misuse and usurpation of power.No doubt, but it is not legislation that is being enacted by the courts when they strike down a law, it is legislation that is being removed.

A law is, in general, a restriction on someone's freedom. One cannot truly say that the courts are legislating from the bench unless they enact additional restrictions on the freedom of the people.

chuckles48
05-13-2010, 10:13 PM
Chuckie and Bill went round and round when Chuckie was pushing Tom Campbell as his choice for Governor. :TFH:

Now, now. Let's be accurate. I know, that's a fairly challenging thing to ask for around here. What I asked for was that he be given a fair shake, given everything else, IF he was willing to be a little more reasonable, given Heller.

He thereafter reiterated his dislike of the 2nd amendment, even WITH Heller. Note my response thereto.

As to anything else? I'm not in a mood to be particularly polite on the subject, so I'll just keep the peace.

greasemonkey
06-03-2010, 2:53 PM
Yes, I believe Mr. Brown has cryptolibertarian tendencies. He's also a cheapskate and at least in this area doesn't seem to care for stupid laws.

He's also had a 25 year period of making pro-gun statements even if it didn't help him. He's said, "it's not NRA members holding up liquor stores in Oakland" and has made numerous past references in public as to the 2nd amendment being
a fundamental individual right.

As AG, a lot of antigun drama just up & quit:



AG Brown filed a hugely significant amicus brief for McDonald encouraging incorporation of
2nd Amednment - represented the largest state in Union/7th largest economy in world.
All other stances in that amicus brief were just cover verbiage.
Stopped an antigun brief from going out for Heller v. DC

DOJ Firearms Division head Randy Rossi chose to rapidly find "other opportunities" in early 2007.
Alison Merrilees was essentially fired a few weeks ago.
Iggy Chinn fired (or door was 1/4" away from his arse when he left).
DOJ Firearms Division downsized to a Bureau.
Microstamping dead and likely unrevivable.



Various new regulations stopped (redefinition of 'detachable mag' etc.)
Did not support CFLC idiocy. AG and even bureacracy appear to support reform for
burdensome process that does not result in any crime stoppage.
Helped quietly intervene in trying to stop AB962.
Stopped DOJ agent interference in local cases and on certain FFL attacks, which then died.
Some cases awaiting DOJ testimony just didn't get any DOJ attention and all of a sudden
'went away'.
No support for Contos case: Alison skewered herself and left to hang; couldn't make an
"AG case" and had to shop it to local prosecutors.
Let 250+K OLLs flourish and market to continue unabated.
.
DOJ Firearms Bureau a skeleton now - mostly running DROSes & keeping guns from felons now, which is fine.


Oh, that's all?? :) THIS POST ^^ NEEDS TO BE A STICKY!!

OleCuss
06-03-2010, 5:53 PM
btt. You're right.

Actually makes me wonder if there ought to be a Calguns Hall of Fame forum which could be devoted to honoring those who have been extraordinarily helpful to protecting and/or advancing the RKBA in the State of California.

Jerry Brown would be an obvious member of that Hall of Fame.

I'd probably have a thread listing the members of the Board of Directors for CGF (they'd probably be too self-conscious/modest to be listed otherwise) along with notables from the California NRA.

But if there were a thread specifically for politician members of the Hall of Fame - that'd be nice.

dfletcher
06-03-2010, 6:42 PM
If the court overturns a law on the basis of it being Unconstitutional, is that "judicial activism"?

Are you going to try to argue that because the right to life isn't enshrined in the Constitution, that we don't have it?

The right to life is absolutely, positively the most important one we have. Without it, we have nothing. The prohibition against murder derives directly from that right. The right to keep and bear arms in part indirectly derives from it.

If you wish to view the court's decision to overturn capital punishment as mere "judicial activism" then that is certainly your right, but that also illustrates an inconsistency in your viewpoint (namely that you would view overturning a capital punishment law on the basis of it violating the right to life as "judicial activism" whereas you would view overturning a gun control law on the basis of it violating the right to keep and bear arms as "the court doing its job").

I urge you to stop picking and choosing which rights you would support on the basis of your own personal preferences, and to instead support real liberty for all (which comes at the price of risk and inconvenience).

Well this thread is all over the place, interestingly (and at times entertainingly) so. :)

No pretense of knowing constitutional law very well, I agree as a practical matter "life" sits rather alone because once violated is rather difficult to set right. But the 5th Amendment does put it in there with liberty and property as in "No person shall be ..... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ......" That a vehicle is in place (due process) to deprive a person of life indicates to me that such punishment was specifically addressed by the Founding Fathers. Being contemplated and specifically included, I think removing it would properly be characterized as "judicial activism". Were it not specifically included in the Constitution and law and order types wished to newly create the punishment, that, I think, would be judicial activism.

My layman's approach is that judicial activism is the process of creating rights not specifically written in the Constitution and BOR; or removing those that are. Whether I agree or disagree with the issues involved is not important.

kcbrown
06-03-2010, 9:05 PM
My layman's approach is that judicial activism is the process of creating rights not specifically written in the Constitution and BOR; or removing those that are. Whether I agree or disagree with the issues involved is not important.

Then, given your definition, "judicial activism" is an activity that has direct Constitutional support via the 9th amendment, since otherwise, the 9th amendment becomes a joke.

dfletcher
06-03-2010, 9:22 PM
Then, given your definition, "judicial activism" is an activity that has direct Constitutional support via the 9th amendment, since otherwise, the 9th amendment becomes a joke.

Point taken. I suppose there could be much discussion as to what those other rights might be and there lies interesting disagreements, discussion.

kcbrown
06-03-2010, 9:43 PM
Point taken. I suppose there could be much discussion as to what those other rights might be and there lies interesting disagreements, discussion.

This is why I tend to fall back onto the notion that the purpose of government is to act as an arbiter in the event there is a collision of rights/freedoms, and that it should otherwise stay out of it.

Which is to say, since a law is in general a restriction on someone's freedom, you really need as few of them as you can possibly get away with.

Another way of saying that is: in general, any given arbitrary thing should be considered a right (something that can be done even if the rest of society disapproves) unless a very good reason that it shouldn't be can be shown and backed by lots of supporting evidence.

dfletcher
06-04-2010, 9:13 AM
This is why I tend to fall back onto the notion that the purpose of government is to act as an arbiter in the event there is a collision of rights/freedoms, and that it should otherwise stay out of it.

Which is to say, since a law is in general a restriction on someone's freedom, you really need as few of them as you can possibly get away with.

Another way of saying that is: in general, any given arbitrary thing should be considered a right (something that can be done even if the rest of society disapproves) unless a very good reason that it shouldn't be can be shown and backed by lots of supporting evidence.

I suppose that's where I'd back off. I can probably go as far as Douglas went on privacy when he said something like "I know it's not mentioned specifically but when you read the Constitution you have to say 'it's in there - it permeates the document' ..." Perhaps he was banking on the 9th. But I'm wary of the "right to a job, right to healthcare, etc" folks and would say default to no unless shown otherwise.

Bugei
06-04-2010, 9:18 AM
There is one problem with your rational, capital punishment is the law. When jurists overturn a law or circumvent it's implementation because they have a differing political viewpoint, that is called judicial activism, and it is a court usurping power not granted to it by the constitution (state in this case, but could be federal just the same). If you don't like the law then work to have it changed via the legislative, or initiative process, not via judicial activism.

Actually, we're doing quite well by using the judicial system to change the law. In fact, we have no other stinking choice in this state. The legislature is stacked and the initiative system...well. It's just strange and it wouldn't pay off either.

So don't run down judicial activism when it's the only thing we have going for us.

kcbrown
06-04-2010, 11:14 AM
I suppose that's where I'd back off. I can probably go as far as Douglas went on privacy when he said something like "I know it's not mentioned specifically but when you read the Constitution you have to say 'it's in there - it permeates the document' ..." Perhaps he was banking on the 9th. But I'm wary of the "right to a job, right to healthcare, etc" folks and would say default to no unless shown otherwise.

I said what I meant to say very badly, actually.

Try substituting "any arbitrary action" for "any arbitrary thing" and see how that works. It's a lot closer to the spirit of what I meant.

Which is to say: freedom is the ability to take an action without hindrance, and the intention of the founders was to maximize the freedom of the people. A possible approach to that is to treat every action a person might take as if were a right unless a strong argument (with supporting evidence) is successfully made that the action in question shouldn't be treated as a right.


For instance, the action of walking to the corner store isn't an enumerated right (indeed, the right to travel itself isn't enumerated, for that matter), but wouldn't you agree that it should be your right to do so? That is, wouldn't you agree that you should be able to do it even over the objections others might have? Note that I'm not talking about some other associated action here, just the action of walking to the corner store.

dfletcher
06-04-2010, 3:48 PM
I said what I meant to say very badly, actually.

Try substituting "any arbitrary action" for "any arbitrary thing" and see how that works. It's a lot closer to the spirit of what I meant.

Which is to say: freedom is the ability to take an action without hindrance, and the intention of the founders was to maximize the freedom of the people. A possible approach to that is to treat every action a person might take as if were a right unless a strong argument (with supporting evidence) is successfully made that the action in question shouldn't be treated as a right.


For instance, the action of walking to the corner store isn't an enumerated right (indeed, the right to travel itself isn't enumerated, for that matter), but wouldn't you agree that it should be your right to do so? That is, wouldn't you agree that you should be able to do it even over the objections others might have? Note that I'm not talking about some other associated action here, just the action of walking to the corner store.

That and others of similar spririt, yes I would agree.