PDA

View Full Version : Saldaña AB1934 propaganda to constituents


HunterJim
08-02-2010, 7:38 PM
I got this today since I am one of her constituents...jim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crucial Senate Committee Gives Green Light to Open Carry Restrictions

San Diego Union Tribune Endorses bill
A bill aimed at curbing the proliferation of guns in public places has passed the Senate Public Safety Committee.
The bill’s author, Assembly Member Lori Saldaña, said this was a crucial test for her legislation, Assembly Bill 1934, because the Senate is usually more reluctant to pass public safety measures than the Assembly.
“I believe the committee members understand the risk to the public and to law enforcement if this unregulated practice is allowed to continue without putting at least some restrictions in place,” Saldaña said.
The Senate Public Safety Committee joins a growing list of supporters of Saldaña’s bill, including law enforcement, faith leaders, crime victims groups, the cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Barbara, and the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.
In a recent editorial the traditionally Libertarian-leaning San Diego Union Tribune called AB 1934 “a reasonable restriction on firearms”.
Saldaña said the bill has resonated with people who are concerned the effects of increasing numbers of guns on California streets.
“Most have expressed serious concern that no permitting, background check or firearm safety training is required to openly carry a handgun along with ammunition,” Saldaña said. “They are also worried that law enforcement officers are prevented from doing their job to protect the public.”
Under current law, when confronted with a person openly carrying a firearm, law enforcement is restricted to confirming whether a firearm is unloaded. The officer is not permitted to run the serial number to verify the legal ownership of the gun or to determine whether the person carrying the gun is subject to a restraining order, is a convicted felon, or has other restrictions on carrying a firearm.
“Open carriers are also very skilled in how to avoid giving information to law enforcement and dare officers to make a wrong move,” Saldaña said. “They coach one another on how to avoid being accountable for their actions and they record the conversations with law enforcement and post it online to teach others how to do the same.”
“Making a game out of evading and provoking law enforcement is not responsible gun ownership,” Saldaña said.
Saldaña said that bringing a gun into any situation raises the risk level significantly.
“The proponents of the open carry movement have taken it upon themselves to bring guns into neighborhoods where firearms are rarely or never seen,” Saldaña said.
“They transform a normally peaceful community into one where the residents are at increased risk of gun violence.”
Saldaña noted that an armed open carry enthusiast recently had his weapon taken in the course of a robbery.
“Unfortunately, the criminal now has two guns and the notion that this practice deters crime seems much less credible.”
The bill now moves to the Senate Floor for consideration.
Return to the Top

diginit
08-02-2010, 8:05 PM
It's a shame Sad ana doesn't realize that criminals and convicted felons carry their guns loaded and concieled. That's why guns are very seldom seen. DUH... I see nothing but FUD in this article.

2009_gunner
08-02-2010, 8:18 PM
. “They coach one another on how to avoid being accountable for their actions and they record the conversations with law enforcement and post it online to teach others how to do the same.”

Not only does she hate the 2nd Amendment, but also the 4th and 5th.

Not that I am in any way surprised....

I can't wait to wear a CRPA shirt while getting my CCW permit, and then wear a t-shirt like this (http://www.zazzle.com/texas_concealed_carry_2_yes_i_am_tshirt-235974956335065349) or this (http://www.zazzle.com/does_this_shirt_conceal_my_gun_well-235206145482168652) on the weekends.

N6ATF
08-02-2010, 8:52 PM
You're not one of her constituents. She ONLY represents the International Criminals Union and its members, and will do anything it takes to keep them safe.

CitaDeL
08-02-2010, 9:15 PM
One of her constituents should send her a carefully reworded rewrite that looks a little like this


Crucial Senate Committee Gives Green Light to Illegal Alien Restrictions

San Diego Union Tribune Endorses bill

A bill aimed at curbing the proliferation of illegal aliens in public places has passed the Senate Public Safety Committee.

The bill’s author, Assembly Member Lori Saldaña, said this was a crucial test for her legislation, Assembly Bill 1070, because the Senate is usually more reluctant to pass public safety measures than the Assembly.

“I believe the committee members understand the risk to the public and to law enforcement if these unregulated immigrants are allowed to congregate without putting at least some restrictions in place,” Saldaña said.
The Senate Public Safety Committee joins a growing list of supporters of Saldaña’s bill, including law enforcement, faith leaders, the San Diego Minutemen, the cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Barbara, and the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

In a recent editorial the traditionally Libertarian-leaning San Diego Union Tribune called AB 1934 “a reasonable restriction on illegal aliens”.
Saldaña said the bill has resonated with people who are concerned the effects of increasing numbers of illegal aliens on California streets.
“Most have expressed serious concern that no visa, green card, background check or other regulation is required to enter the United States,” Saldaña said. “They are also worried that law enforcement officers are prevented from doing their job to protect the public.”

Under current law, when confronted with a person who may be an illegal alien, law enforcement are restricted from confirming whether a suspect is an illegal immigrant. The officer is not permitted to run the identification to verify the citizenship of the suspect or to determine whether the alien immigrant is subject to a restraining order, is a convicted felon, or has other restrictions preventing them entry to the United States.
“Illegal aliens are also very skilled in how to avoid giving information to law enforcement and dare officers to make a wrong move,” Saldaña said. “They coach one another on how to avoid being accountable for their actions and they share their encounters to teach others how to do the same.”
“Making a game out of evading and provoking law enforcement is not responsible immigration,” Saldaña said.
Saldaña said that bringing an undocumented immigrant into any situation raises the risk level significantly.
“The proponents of the open borders movement have taken it upon themselves to bring illegal aliens into neighborhoods where they are rarely or never seen,” Saldaña said.
“They transform a normally peaceful community into one where the residents are at increased risk of gang violence.”

The bill now moves to the Senate Floor for consideration.

I don't think she would like it one damn bit... but if she thinks exposed firearms are dangerous, she should be hard pressed to justify her stand on unregulated immigration using those same terms.

nicki
08-03-2010, 3:20 AM
Let's see if I got this right because I am not a wise latina like Lori Saldana:rolleyes:

Lori is worried that cops have to waste time doing e checks.

I have a simple solution, repeal the Mulford act, then they can treat all guns as loaded and skip the checks.:D

Well, that is the smart thing to do, but remember she is a wise latina.

So let's see how wish her bill is.

Since people doing UOC are doing so to make political statement's , AB1934 does conflict with freedom of political expression.

The 2nd amendment is and individual right to keep and BEAR ARMS. Since we can't carry concealed, we have to carry openly.

Now, if you are in fear of your safety while traveling about your daily business, then your 9th amendment right to travel is compromised.

If Lori really didn't want people to be openly carrying, she would have done something about the discrimatory CCW policies.

While I don't want to see the bill pass, I do see a future for gun lawsuits becuase of this bill.

motorhead
08-03-2010, 7:29 AM
has anyone started a recall drive. that might get her attention.

HunterJim
08-03-2010, 8:15 AM
The district is heavily Democrat in voting numbers, and she is termed out of the Assembly at the end of this term. She has been trying to find another public elected job, so we will probably continue to see her. She took a run at the Board of Supervisors, but did not enter the race.

jim

Untamed1972
08-03-2010, 9:19 AM
I guess they forgot that part where "a total ban can never be considred a reasonable restriction".

"Most have expressed serious concern that no permitting, background check or firearm safety training is required to openly carry a handgun along with ammunition,” Saldaña said. "


Then why didn't her bill simply ask for a the establishment of a licensing and training system, rather than a total ban?

"Saldaña noted that an armed open carry enthusiast recently had his weapon taken in the course of a robbery.
“Unfortunately, the criminal now has two guns and the notion that this practice deters crime seems much less credible.”

And how many legally armed citizens have stopped crimes and protected themselves and others? How many unarmed citizens have been beaten, raped or murdered because they had no effective means to defend themselves? Maybe she should tell the woman who was stabbed in an OC parking lot at 0930 yesterday morning during a carjacking that it was better that she was unarmed and unable to protect herself.

Untamed1972
08-03-2010, 9:24 AM
Maybe it's time for an "empty holster" protest in front of her house? Maybe start playing the "gun control advocates are kin with racists" angle.

badmonkey
08-03-2010, 9:32 AM
“They are also worried that law enforcement officers are prevented from doing their job to protect the public.”

I take exception with this comment.

Only Police are allowed to protect the public now? the Public can no longer defend themselves?

Maestro Pistolero
08-03-2010, 9:58 AM
They are going to end up trading UOC for LOC, and I am going to LMAO.

Seriously, an interesting strategy would be to attack the UNLOADED part of the law RIGHT NOW. Just assume what we all know is true, that we can carry a functional (loaded) gun openly, and go after the unloaded restriction.

Roadrunner
08-03-2010, 10:05 AM
I'm laughing at those idiots in Sacramento, and you should too. The Second Amendment is our right, and their feeble attempts to keep us from exercising our rights will be their undoing. Our attack dogs are tearing them up, and they are cornered like a treed Raccoon.

I quite frankly couldn't care less about UOC, but what I do like about it is, it's making the average person aware of their 2A rights, giving some marginal protection to those of you who live in Urbania and choose to UOC, and sending a message to Sacramento that in spite of their overbearing dictatorial leanings, we will not blindly accept their edicts.

Everytime Saldana does something in regards to this nutty bill, she presents herself as a complete whack job. Her theatrics are obvious political grandstanding, and from what I've read in the comments sections of articles about AB1934, a majority of the comments are in favor of the UOCers and against AB1934.

The fact that Saldana and her co-conspirators would lie about UOCers is no surprise either. They have no real evidence to justify this bastard child of a law, so they make stuff up and ignore the facts. They are in denial and all of the lies are their sorry attempts to convince themselves they are right.

We are on the offensive, so let not your heart be troubled, we are winning.

To the LCAV, Brady and DOJ trolls that cowardly lurk in the background, we're coming for you, your days are numbered.

Pixs
08-03-2010, 10:12 AM
Not only does she hate the 2nd Amendment, but also the 4th and 5th.

Not that I am in any way surprised....

I can't wait to wear a CRPA shirt while getting my CCW permit, and then wear a t-shirt like this (http://www.zazzle.com/texas_concealed_carry_2_yes_i_am_tshirt-235974956335065349) or this (http://www.zazzle.com/does_this_shirt_conceal_my_gun_well-235206145482168652) on the weekends.

Hi Folks,
Just a thought but how about trying to get as many people as possible to wear those tee shirts and really burn up the LEOs time and budget.
Best to all,
Pixs

2009_gunner
08-03-2010, 11:01 AM
It's not about attempting to burn up LEO time and money, but about ensuring that LEO respect each of the enumerated rights. Those rights were meant to protect points of view those in positions of authority might not like, but have to respect.

The only way to ensure (reluctant) respect for our rights is there is to exercise the right at the proper time (after the current lawsuits have gone through their course).

jdberger
08-03-2010, 11:08 AM
Saldaña noted that an armed open carry enthusiast recently had his weapon taken in the course of a robbery.


Any attribution for this statement?

Saldana's a boob. She's repeatedly said that she's attempting to stifle First Amendment freedom of expression.

Let her run for another office - I think that she might be suprised at the number of people and the amount of money that's mobilized to keep her a civilian.

wash
08-03-2010, 11:21 AM
I have not heard the explanation of how AB 1934 is a good thing for us or helps us get LOC in any way.

I don't think it does anything positive at all.

As for attacking our laws to get LOC, we should get shall issue CCW first or California might become an LOC only state.

That wouldn't be the worst thing ever but I want it all. The way to get there is fight the discretionary issue problem and then fight for LOC. After that we can even try for Vermont style no permit carry but I would save that fight for after we defeat the AWB.

We have to be strategic. The anti's will latch on to anything that can restrict our rights so don't give them anything!

joedogboy
08-03-2010, 11:22 AM
"Most have expressed serious concern that no permitting, background check or firearm safety training is required to openly carry a handgun along with ammunition,” Saldaña said. "

Then why didn't her bill simply ask for a the establishment of a licensing and training system, rather than a total ban?



Since there is a background check and required safety training to purchase a handgun, it stands to reason that most UOC practitioners have undergone both. This sounds like a "half-lie" - a knowing distortion of the truth - to me.

It would seem that Saldana's real problem is with the ineffectiveness of those laws. Perhaps Saldana should focus on getting those changed or repealed. ;)

wkd4496
08-03-2010, 11:34 AM
“They are also worried that law enforcement officers are prevented from doing their job to protect the public.”

FALSE. Their job isn't to protect us. The Supreme Court has made that very clear.

I really don't her.

pullnshoot25
08-03-2010, 11:34 AM
I have not heard the explanation of how AB 1934 is a good thing for us or helps us get LOC in any way.

I don't think it does anything positive at all.

As for attacking our laws to get LOC, we should get shall issue CCW first or California might become an LOC only state.

That wouldn't be the worst thing ever but I want it all. The way to get there is fight the discretionary issue problem and then fight for LOC. After that we can even try for Vermont style no permit carry but I would save that fight for after we defeat the AWB.

We have to be strategic. The anti's will latch on to anything that can restrict our rights so don't give them anything!

I think you got that reversed. CCW first may make us CCW only, like Texas and Florida.

wash
08-03-2010, 11:45 AM
I think Texas and Florida have a damn good shot of becoming LOC.

In fact as the recent trend goes, we might see a case like that in a friendlier jurisdiction so that we can import the decision back to CA.

LOC before CCW would only let you fight for CCW with a privacy angle or something. That's a tough fight if the courts aren't friendly.

If you get CCW before LOC, you can fight for LOC because they are requiring a permit to exercise a civil right.

N6ATF
08-03-2010, 11:48 AM
Until TX or FL are challenged for taxing and infringing the right.

Wherryj
08-03-2010, 11:48 AM
I got this today since I am one of her constituents...jim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crucial Senate Committee Gives Green Light to Open Carry Restrictions

San Diego Union Tribune Endorses bill
A bill aimed at curbing the proliferation of guns in public places has passed the Senate Public Safety Committee.
The bill’s author, Assembly Member Lori Saldaña, said this was a crucial test for her legislation, Assembly Bill 1934, because the Senate is usually more reluctant to pass public safety measures than the Assembly.
“I believe the committee members understand the risk to the public and to law enforcement if this unregulated practice is allowed to continue without putting at least some restrictions in place,” Saldaña said.
The Senate Public Safety Committee joins a growing list of supporters of Saldaña’s bill, including law enforcement, faith leaders, crime victims groups, the cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Barbara, and the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.
In a recent editorial the traditionally Libertarian-leaning San Diego Union Tribune called AB 1934 “a reasonable restriction on firearms”.
Saldaña said the bill has resonated with people who are concerned the effects of increasing numbers of guns on California streets.
“Most have expressed serious concern that no permitting, background check or firearm safety training is required to openly carry a handgun along with ammunition,” Saldaña said. “They are also worried that law enforcement officers are prevented from doing their job to protect the public.”
Under current law, when confronted with a person openly carrying a firearm, law enforcement is restricted to confirming whether a firearm is unloaded. The officer is not permitted to run the serial number to verify the legal ownership of the gun or to determine whether the person carrying the gun is subject to a restraining order, is a convicted felon, or has other restrictions on carrying a firearm.
“Open carriers are also very skilled in how to avoid giving information to law enforcement and dare officers to make a wrong move,” Saldaña said. “They coach one another on how to avoid being accountable for their actions and they record the conversations with law enforcement and post it online to teach others how to do the same.”
“Making a game out of evading and provoking law enforcement is not responsible gun ownership,” Saldaña said.
Saldaña said that bringing a gun into any situation raises the risk level significantly.
“The proponents of the open carry movement have taken it upon themselves to bring guns into neighborhoods where firearms are rarely or never seen,” Saldaña said.
“They transform a normally peaceful community into one where the residents are at increased risk of gun violence.”
Saldaña noted that an armed open carry enthusiast recently had his weapon taken in the course of a robbery.
“Unfortunately, the criminal now has two guns and the notion that this practice deters crime seems much less credible.”
The bill now moves to the Senate Floor for consideration.
Return to the Top

“Open carriers are also very skilled in how to avoid giving information to law enforcement and dare officers to make a wrong move,” Saldaña said. “They coach one another on how to avoid being accountable for their actions and they record the conversations with law enforcement and post it online to teach others how to do the same.”
“Making a game out of evading and provoking law enforcement is not responsible gun ownership,” Saldaña said.

Those dastardly law-abiding citizens who know their legal rights-they are making a mockery of our Police State!!!

Wherryj
08-03-2010, 11:52 AM
Any attribution for this statement?

Saldana's a boob. She's repeatedly said that she's attempting to stifle First Amendment freedom of expression.

Let her run for another office - I think that she might be suprised at the number of people and the amount of money that's mobilized to keep her a civilian.

If an UOC carrier had his gun taken in a robbery, doesn't that argue for the need to have LOC? He couldn't get his gun loaded quickly enough to avoid a violent crime.

Is she trying to make an argument AGAINST her own bill?

Wherryj
08-03-2010, 11:57 AM
They are going to end up trading UOC for LOC, and I am going to LMAO.

Seriously, an interesting strategy would be to attack the UNLOADED part of the law RIGHT NOW. Just assume what we all know is true, that we can carry a functional (loaded) gun openly, and go after the unloaded restriction.

I'd be just as happy with LOC as with CCW, assuming that the "restrictions" were reasonable (no automatic body cavity search or shoot on sight in Costco types of provisions).

hill billy
08-03-2010, 12:00 PM
Hi Folks,
Just a thought but how about trying to get as many people as possible to wear those tee shirts and really burn up the LEOs time and budget.
Best to all,
Pixs


I'm pretty sure that would do anything but turn away people who had a marginal opinion on the subject previously. There are already too many LEO's with a bad view of gun owners, why make it worse?

AK_Guy
08-03-2010, 12:15 PM
Saldana = Maxine Waters of San Diego...

I'm embarrassed that my fellow neighbors actually voted her into office...she was unemployed with no work history (other than helping in the computer lab at the local JC), and the only 2 people that she could get to endorse her on her commercials were her parents...a sad statement on my fellow Clairemontonians...

Vox
08-03-2010, 12:45 PM
Those dastardly law-abiding citizens who know their legal rights-they are making a mockery of our Police State!!!

I think I want to make that my new sig line.

HunterJim
08-03-2010, 12:53 PM
She also has an organization: ...Saldaña’s organization, United for a Hate Free San Diego.

That is totally amazing!...jim

Chester
08-03-2010, 1:05 PM
“Open carriers are also very skilled in how to avoid giving information to law enforcement and dare officers to make a wrong move,” Saldaña said. “They coach one another on how to avoid being accountable for their actions and they record the conversations with law enforcement and post it online to teach others how to do the same.”
“Making a game out of evading and provoking law enforcement is not responsible gun ownership,” Saldaña said.

Those dastardly law-abiding citizens who know their legal rights-they are making a mockery of our Police State!!!

I know! Someone should put a bill up for vote that bans that pesky U.S. Constitution considering how much it prevents law enforcement from doing their jobs.

In all sincerity, the part you quoted from her REALLY scares the **** out of me. If anything, it pretty much enforces my desire to purchase MORE guns, not out of spite, but because it's becoming increasingly apparent that my right to life and liberty are seen as things to overcome by some of the people in power.

wheels
08-03-2010, 1:19 PM
Could she just be grandstanding for her next job at the public trough? If she has to leave the assembly where is she going next?

Maestro Pistolero
08-03-2010, 1:59 PM
Again, since CA has open carry right now, albeit retarded, unloaded open carry, why not just go diectly after the unloaded law for it's obvious unconstitutionality according to Heller's functional firearm requirement? If we get LOC, then banning UOC would essentially be preempted.

joedogboy
08-03-2010, 2:18 PM
Could she just be grandstanding for her next job at the public trough? If she has to leave the assembly where is she going next?

Maybe she thinks that Jerry Brown will become governor, and she wants to be AG - thus her inspired "make the world safe for the children by getting tough on people who aren't actually criminals" legislation.

Crom
08-03-2010, 2:23 PM
You're not one of her constituents. She ONLY represents the International Criminals Union and its members, and will do anything it takes to keep them safe.

:laugh: It's so true!

Barbarossa
08-03-2010, 3:12 PM
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ExDKsKlG_P4/TFiUAzY4VHI/AAAAAAAACHo/2gSILjWNlxI/s800/Salda%C3%B1a.JPG

pullnshoot25
08-03-2010, 4:45 PM
I think Texas and Florida have a damn good shot of becoming LOC.

In fact as the recent trend goes, we might see a case like that in a friendlier jurisdiction so that we can import the decision back to CA.

LOC before CCW would only let you fight for CCW with a privacy angle or something. That's a tough fight if the courts aren't friendly.

If you get CCW before LOC, you can fight for LOC because they are requiring a permit to exercise a civil right.

If it goes your way, then we shall have to wait about 50 years to turn it around at least. TX has banned handgun OC since 1870 and they are just coming around to even THINKING about it.

Hopi
08-03-2010, 5:01 PM
Any attribution for this statement?

Saldana's a boob. She's repeatedly said that she's attempting to stifle First Amendment freedom of expression.

Let her run for another office - I think that she might be suprised at the number of people and the amount of money that's mobilized to keep her a civilian.


No kidding. She needs to be reminded that although many most intelligent people find her treasonous language scary and dangerous, we are not asking to alter the 1a to shut her up.

stix213
08-03-2010, 5:25 PM
“I believe the committee members understand the risk to the public and to law enforcement if this unregulated practice is allowed to continue without putting at least some restrictions in place,” Saldaña said.

I wouldn't call banning the practice "some restrictions"

Is sewing someone's mouth shut "some restrictions" on free speech?

“Most have expressed serious concern that no permitting, background check or firearm safety training is required to openly carry a handgun along with ammunition,” Saldaña said. “They are also worried that law enforcement officers are prevented from doing their job to protect the public.”

If your definition of "doing their job to protect the public" is violating an individual's 2A rights, then yeah they are prevented.

Under current law, when confronted with a person openly carrying a firearm, law enforcement is restricted to confirming whether a firearm is unloaded. The officer is not permitted to run the serial number to verify the legal ownership of the gun or to determine whether the person carrying the gun is subject to a restraining order, is a convicted felon, or has other restrictions on carrying a firearm.

I don't understand the logical leap from seeing someone legally transporting/carrying an unloaded firearm openly, to some need to verify they aren't a felon. How many felons openly advertise they are carrying a firearm AND don't even load the damn thing? I would think the simple act of UOCing is evidence already that they are NOT a felon.

More people die every year from car accidents than by firearms (on accident, on purpose, justly and unjustly) each year in the US. Shouldn't driving a car be probable cause to verify you aren't a felon? You could mow down an entire kindergarten class with one press of the wrong peddle after all, and you don't even have to lock up your car in a school zone, but instead get to flaunt your death machine on wheels for all to see right in front of the school. Think of the children!!!

“Open carriers are also very skilled in how to avoid giving information to law enforcement and dare officers to make a wrong move,” Saldaña said. “They coach one another on how to avoid being accountable for their actions and they record the conversations with law enforcement and post it online to teach others how to do the same.”

So because officers can't just simply violate your 5th amendment rights, that makes for a good reason for violating your 2nd amendment rights?

“Making a game out of evading and provoking law enforcement is not responsible gun ownership,” Saldaña said.
Saldaña said that bringing a gun into any situation raises the risk level significantly.

Since when is the 5th amendment a game? Also I don't see a huge risk with unloaded firearms on the streets, considering how many illegally concealed carried loaded ones are already there

“The proponents of the open carry movement have taken it upon themselves to bring guns into neighborhoods where firearms are rarely or never seen,” Saldaña said.

Cause you rarely see the gang bangers OCing

“They transform a normally peaceful community into one where the residents are at increased risk of gun violence.”

I've never heard of an unloaded firearm hurting someone, except for that one time I got slide bite when dry cycling my Glock

Saldaña noted that an armed open carry enthusiast recently had his weapon taken in the course of a robbery.
“Unfortunately, the criminal now has two guns and the notion that this practice deters crime seems much less credible.”

Well you got a point there.... Seems both me and Saldaña should both be on the side of "shall issue" CCW then if Saldaña really meant that statement.

I personally think UOC is pretty stupid, but Saldaña seems to have the intelligence of a rock

craneman
08-03-2010, 7:48 PM
She also has an organization: ...Saldaña’s organization, United for a Hate Free San Diego.

That is totally amazing!...jim

It ain't workin....I can honostly say I hate her.

hill billy
08-03-2010, 7:58 PM
It ain't workin....I can honostly say I hate her.:rofl:

HunterJim
08-03-2010, 8:01 PM
http://www.hatefreesandiego.org/

I am having trouble understanding how Lori S. can push for hate free San Diego while hating guns and people who carry them.

From the web site:

"A hate crime is defined as any criminal or attempted criminal act which is motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or disability and accompanied by a verbal, written or physical action intended to create emotional suffering, physical harm or property damage."

hill billy
08-03-2010, 8:04 PM
http://www.hatefreesandiego.org/

I am having trouble understanding how Lori S. can push for hate free San Diego while hating guns and people who carry them.

From the web site:

"A hate crime is defined as any criminal or attempted criminal act which is motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or disability and accompanied by a verbal, written or physical action intended to create emotional suffering, physical harm or property damage."

I can do one better. She hates people who exercise their "Fundamental civil right(s)" I might go so far as to say LS is committing a hate crime.:chris:

diginit
08-03-2010, 8:44 PM
Which is worse... A hate crime or a civil rights violation? This should be debated at a Federal level. Not this blind, ignorant States Legislature.


Rose colored glasses for sale. See the world the way you want to. Not the way it really is...Then you can retire to the safety of your gated home and armed bodyguards.
http://www.areyoureallythatstupid.com

hill billy
08-03-2010, 8:50 PM
Which is worse... A hate crime or a civil rights violation?

A rose by any other name...

383green
08-03-2010, 8:55 PM
http://www.hatefreesandiego.org/

I am having trouble understanding how Lori S. can push for hate free San Diego while hating guns and people who carry them.

Not "(hate free) (San Diego)", but "(hate) (free San Diego)". An armed San Diego would be a free San Diego, and she hates that.

IWc
08-03-2010, 9:09 PM
I wonder why she didn't hates gay.

diginit
08-03-2010, 9:55 PM
A fan of Ellen Degenerate maybe? I don't know. Only she does
Back on topic now...

motorhead
08-04-2010, 12:16 PM
perhaps just some "recall saldana" t shirts. i realize it's an empty threat but it'd get attention. i'd wear one.

N6ATF
08-04-2010, 1:33 PM
She's termed out. So you'd probably have to save the shirts for if/when she ever seeks elected office again.