PDA

View Full Version : So Jerry Brown wants our vote


radioman
08-07-2010, 2:26 PM
As AG he can give us 2A right now, he has not. DOJ-BOF is an infringement on our 2A rights, most everywhere in this county you can walk in to a gun shop, buy a gun, the shopkeeper makes a phone call and you walk out with your gun, it's called NICS, and it works. As far as I know the gun buyer in other states don't pay for this call, nor do they pay for a HSC or a DROS, we do, and it is as unjust as a pole tax, we have MacDonald but not our rights! This AG wants our vote for governor of this state, well AG Brown, I/We want our 2A rights. If we as a voting block, here at Calguns and opencarry.org, call and write and email AG brown and make it clear we will vote our 2A rights. The time has come for the AG to you know what or get off the pot. We are a voting block, lets put it to work, put an end to the BOF or look a job somewhere other then here. or am I by my self on this?

FirstFlight
08-07-2010, 2:45 PM
I have a vague recollection in reading, in the distant past, that the Cali AG has the authority to change the "CCW law" to shall issue from discretionary issue without any approvals from the legislature. Can anyone tell me if this is fact or fiction?

Vox
08-07-2010, 2:50 PM
How much power does theAG have over DROS or the HSC? I assume those are things that the assembly and other governors have required.

jdberger
08-07-2010, 2:54 PM
As AG he can give us 2A right now, he has not. DOJ-BOF is an infringement on our 2A rights, most everywhere in this county you can walk in to a gun shop, buy a gun, the shopkeeper makes a phone call and you walk out with your gun, it's called NICS, and it works. As far as I know the gun buyer in other states don't pay for this call, nor do they pay for a HSC or a DROS, we do, and it is as unjust as a pole tax, we have MacDonald but not our rights! This AG wants our vote for governor of this state, well AG Brown, I/We want our 2A rights. If we as a voting block, here at Calguns and opencarry.org, call and write and email AG brown and make it clear we will vote our 2A rights. The time has come for the AG to you know what or get off the pot. We are a voting block, lets put it to work, put an end to the BOF or look a job somewhere other then here. or am I by my self on this?

So, the AG can just invalidate any law passed by the legislature (or the people) if he wants to?

Gee. I didn't know that....:rolleyes:

edgerly779
08-07-2010, 2:56 PM
Somebody please edit this. It makes us look like idots that do not know how to spell. BROWN not BRONW. When creating post check spelling.

Window_Seat
08-07-2010, 3:05 PM
I have a vague recollection in reading, in the distant past, that the Cali AG has the authority to change the "CCW law" to shall issue from discretionary issue without any approvals from the legislature. Can anyone tell me if this is fact or fiction?

Fiction.

The AG can update or revise the 1977 opinion (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf) on good cause that the Sheriffs in non-green counties (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png) have been using for their convenience.

It would take an act of State Assembly & Senate to change 12050 to take discretion away from the issuing authority, and since that isn't going to happen, the courts will likely do it for us within 18-24 months. See Sykes v. McGinness, Peruta v. County of San Diego, and Palmer v. D.C. in my signature line below to find out more.

Erik.

Rossi357
08-07-2010, 3:24 PM
Jeerry who?

FirstFlight
08-07-2010, 3:27 PM
Fiction.

The AG can update or revise the 1977 opinion (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf) on good cause that the Sheriffs in non-green counties (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png) have been using for their convenience.

It would take an act of State Assembly & Senate to change 12050 to take discretion away from the issuing authority, and since that isn't going to happen, the courts will likely do it for us within 18-24 months. See Sykes v. McGinness, Peruta v. County of San Diego, and Palmer v. D.C. in my signature line below to find out more.

Erik.

Thanks Erik...that answers that question!

gunsmith
08-07-2010, 3:29 PM
As AG he can give us 2A right now

"We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights", in other words God gave us rights- not AG's

383green
08-07-2010, 3:31 PM
As AG he can give us 2A right now, he has not.

No, he cannot. He does not have the power or authority to repeal laws, change laws, or introduce new laws.

DOJ-BOF is an infringement on our 2A rights,

While that may well be true, the AG does not have the authority to eliminate the BOF's functions. The most he can do is to demote the BOF within the DOJ organization and put a muzzle on it... and he has already done those things.

most everywhere in this county you can walk in to a gun shop, buy a gun, the shopkeeper makes a phone call and you walk out with your gun, it's called NICS, and it works. As far as I know the gun buyer in other states don't pay for this call, nor do they pay for a HSC or a DROS, we do, and it is as unjust as a pole tax,

He does not have the power to do anything about this. It would require a change of CA law to be passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor, or a ruling invalidating existing laws from a suitably superior court.

we have MacDonald but not our rights!

McDonald is the first step in a long process. You're going to have to be more patient.

The time has come for the AG to you know what or get off the pot.

Exactly what do you think he should do? If it involves changing existing CA law, then you might as well complain to your garbage man about a problem with your telephone bill. The AG doesn't have the authority to change existing laws or create new ones on a whim.

or am I by my self on this?

I certainly hope so, because your post was rambling, incoherent, misspelled, and based on pure fantasy.

Ishooter
08-07-2010, 3:37 PM
Do you want your rights to own guns to be more fair like other freer states, or do you want your gun rights to be more strict than what we Californians already have now? Ask yourselves this question before you vote for an AG. Find out more about the gun issues & opinions of the AG and his office, and their prosecutions on guns before you vote. He can have a huge impact on gun rights in Cali.

383green
08-07-2010, 3:38 PM
Do you want your rights to own guns to be more fair like other freer states, or do you want your gun rights to be more strict than what we Californians already have now? Ask yourselves this question before you vote for an AG. Find out more about the gun issues & opinions of the AG and his office, and their prosecutions on guns before you vote. He can have a huge impact on gun rights in Cali.

In particular, pay attention to how the gun issues, opinions and prosecutions changed under Brown compared to his predecessor. Brown was a big upgrade.

Vox
08-07-2010, 3:42 PM
Brown may be an upgrade but I still have my doubts about his worhtiness as a candidate or governor. granted I have similar reservations about Whitman... As much as I' like to be I can't foce myself to become a one-issue voter, even when the issue as as near and dear to my heart as gun rights

HowardW56
08-07-2010, 3:42 PM
Jeerry who?


Bronw, just like it says....... :D

Maestro Pistolero
08-07-2010, 4:05 PM
Fer the luv of GOD ficks the spellin' on that tittle. I can't STANDS it no more.

gunsmith
08-07-2010, 4:11 PM
Fer the luv of GOD ficks the spellin' on that tittle. I can't STANDS it no more.
Amen!!

wilit
08-07-2010, 4:26 PM
Ask him, if he were Governor and AB1934 was on his desk for signature, would he sign it or not. I think that's a good litmus test of whether he's pro-2A or not.

pTa
08-07-2010, 4:33 PM
Ask him, if he were Governor and AB1934 was on his desk for signature, would he sign it or not. I think that's a good litmus test of whether he's pro-2A or not.
awesome idea

vantec08
08-07-2010, 4:49 PM
I have had an inquiry in to AG and DOJ for weeks about 12200PC -- not even a "we appreciate your opinion and will get back to you soon" response. Moonbeam is a typical shuck-jive CA lawyer-career politician and that's what many want. I dont.

CCWFacts
08-07-2010, 4:56 PM
The AG can update or revise the 1977 opinion (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf) on good cause that the Sheriffs in non-green counties (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png) have been using for their convenience.


I would like to see one of the pro-CCW assemblymembers (Knight perhaps?) ask AG Brown for a new informal letter. I don't know what were the legislative circumstances that lead to AG Younger's 1977 opinion letter, but it's perfectly normal for the legislature to ask the AG for legal opinions, and now would be a good time. Any truly pro-CCW assemblymember could do this. The request comes from one individual and does not need to be voted on by the assembly. AG Brown wrote an Amicus brief in McDonald, and now McDonald has been decided, so it would be a grand time to write a new informal letter.

diginit
08-07-2010, 9:04 PM
I still prefer Brouwn over Whiteman... I'm not predjedice. :D

wildhawker
08-07-2010, 9:20 PM
Vantec, what was the nature of your inquiry? Post it here or send me a PM.

Skidmark
08-07-2010, 9:28 PM
Jeerry who?

Bronw, man, Bronw...

But I wonder if Jerry reads Harpers? Great article on CCW permits in the current issue of the magazine.

vantec08
08-07-2010, 9:29 PM
I inquired about AK auto bolt carriers as pertains to 12200PC. The only thing DOJ will tell me verbally is that it is a violation, arrests and prosecutions have been made (which I already knew). Their reluctance to get back to me in writing indicates: 1 - - they dont give a rats patoot. 2 -- They are rethinking the enforcement of it. 3 -- They know some changes, perhaps BIG changes, are coming and wont commit to anything right now. Knowing what I know about bureaucracy, I vote for #1. Stephen Lindley is the big dog of DOJ firearms division.

jbolton
08-07-2010, 9:39 PM
Give the guy a break. He's just pissed as much of us are about certain restrictions, and hoops we californians have to deal with. Educate him. Don't bash him.

vantec08
08-07-2010, 10:25 PM
Educate WHO about WHAT??

sholling
08-07-2010, 11:18 PM
One of the keys to putting Californians back to work and saving an estimated one million California jobs is Prop 23. The proposition puts the draconian job killing California global warming law on hold until unemployment drops below 5.5% for 4 quarters. Brown is an environmental nutjob and the judge found his official ballot description deceitful. If we can't trust him to play it straight and not try to deceive the public over a ballot proposition how do we know he's not being deceitful with us on the 2nd Amendment? Whitman is no friend of gun owners but is Jerry really a friend or just using us? And do we need jobs?

http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_15670531

A state judge Tuesday ordered the ballot language of Proposition 23 -- a November measure that would suspend California's landmark global warming law -- to be rewritten, handing a victory to supporters of the measure who said Attorney General Jerry Brown wrote misleading and biased wording.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled in favor of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which filed the lawsuit last week.

Under Frawley's ruling, the phrase "major polluters" must be replaced with "major sources of emissions." He also said the title and summary of the measure cannot say that it would "abandon" California's greenhouse gas laws, but rather would "suspend" them, among other changes.

Frawley sided with supporters of the measure who argued that the word "polluters" is prejudiced because the laws affect lots of sources of carbon dioxide and because voters typically think of smog, not greenhouse gases, in that context. Opponents of the measure argued that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that can be regulated by the U.S. EPA under the Clean Air Act.

"We're obviously very pleased," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "When we first read the title and summary it struck as extraordinarily biased."

Coupal said the ruling should help improve the chances that the measure will pass.

Brown's office, which is responsible for Advertisement writing the title and summary of state ballot initiatives, said it would not appeal the decision.

Window_Seat
08-08-2010, 3:03 AM
I would like to see one of the pro-CCW assemblymembers (Knight perhaps?) ask AG Brown for a new informal letter. I don't know what were the legislative circumstances that lead to AG Younger's 1977 opinion letter, but it's perfectly normal for the legislature to ask the AG for legal opinions, and now would be a good time. Any truly pro-CCW assemblymember could do this. The request comes from one individual and does not need to be voted on by the assembly. AG Brown wrote an Amicus brief in McDonald, and now McDonald has been decided, so it would be a grand time to write a new informal letter.

This would be a great idea, and one might think that even though JB is as pro as he indicates in his amicus curiae (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) to the SCOTUS in the McDonald case, I can still see why he might be apprehensive at re-defining the GC opinion, because it can hurt him in his election, and it would be a perfect opportunity for BC/LCAV to pounce on him in a TV ad (if they can afford it). Otherwise, he might have done it long ago.

Erik.

CCWFacts
08-08-2010, 9:42 AM
This would be a great idea, and one might think that even though JB is as pro as he indicates in his amicus curiae (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) to the SCOTUS in the McDonald case, I can still see why he might be apprehensive at re-defining the GC opinion, because it can hurt him in his election, and it would be a perfect opportunity for BC/LCAV to pounce on him in a TV ad (if they can afford it). Otherwise, he might have done it long ago.

I don't think he would have done it long ago. It wouldn't have made any sense until after both Heller and McDonald. Prior to that, nothing had changed (legally) that would have an impact on CCW.

Also he won't do it of his own initiative. Someone in the legislature needs to ask him to do it.

I don't think it would have any political liability for him, no matter what it says. Look at the 1977 letter. Any juicy quotes in it? No, it's all legal mumbo jumbo that only makes sense to us because we're very well aware of these topics. A 2010 letter would talk about incorporated rights, discretion, PC12050, standards of review and so on... none of that is comprehensible to the average voter.

Take a look at the wording in his Amicus brief:

California has a strong interest in protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens. But unlike many states, California has no state constitutional counterpart to the Second Amendment. Unless the protections of the Second Amendment extend to citizens living in the States as well as to those living in federal enclaves, California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

That's pretty strong language. Is it hurting him in his campaign? A new CCW informal letter would be a lot more obscure and low-profile than that.

HowardW56
08-08-2010, 9:55 AM
I don't think he would have done it long ago. It wouldn't have made any sense until after both Heller and McDonald. Prior to that, nothing had changed (legally) that would have an impact on CCW.

Also he won't do it of his own initiative. Someone in the legislature needs to ask him to do it.

Isn't there a friendly legislator that would make a request of the AG for a revised interpretation, in light of the Heller/McDonald decisions? The only downside is that will give another angle to the Whitman camp to use against him...

CCWFacts
08-08-2010, 9:59 AM
Isn't there a friendly legislator that would make a request of the AG for a revised interpretation, in light of the Heller/McDonald decisions?

That's why I keep bringing this up. AG Brown is a friend of gun owners and this is a great opportunity to give us a major help in a low-profile way.

The only downside is that will give another angle to the Whitman camp to use against him...

No way. Look at my quote from his McDonald brief above. That's a lot higher profile than something as obscure as an Informal Letter.

Writing a new and improved IL can only help him, because people like us will understand and appreciate it, while the rest of the voters and the media won't have a clue.

lazs
08-08-2010, 10:02 AM
we rarely have much choice anymore in kalifornia.. the best we can get these days is

"less actively hostile" to the second.

k1dude
08-08-2010, 10:41 AM
As AG he can give us 2A right now, he has not. DOJ-BOF is an infringement on our 2A rights, most everywhere in this county you can walk in to a gun shop, buy a gun, the shopkeeper makes a phone call and you walk out with your gun, it's called NICS, and it works. As far as I know the gun buyer in other states don't pay for this call, nor do they pay for a HSC or a DROS, we do, and it is as unjust as a pole tax, we have MacDonald but not our rights! This AG wants our vote for governor of this state, well AG Brown, I/We want our 2A rights. If we as a voting block, here at Calguns and opencarry.org, call and write and email AG brown and make it clear we will vote our 2A rights. The time has come for the AG to you know what or get off the pot. We are a voting block, lets put it to work, put an end to the BOF or look a job somewhere other then here. or am I by my self on this?

As much as I dislike Brown, he would commit political suicide before an election if he did this in our overwhelmingly liberal state. Even if he believes it, he would never do it.

50 Shooter
08-08-2010, 10:50 AM
Some of you need to pull your head out of your A**, Brown will say ANYTHING to get into the Governers seat! He can't be trusted any more then Meg can.

Wake up and smell your rights going down the sh*tter!!!

All we have is dumb and dumber running for office and neither are pro gun period! Stop spreading the gospel that Moonbeam is on our side, the only side he's on is his own.

So, the way I see it is that we as gun owners are still going to be in the same spot as we are right now with the Nazi "stealth" candidate that everyone was praising during the recall! Remember that?!

Say what you want but you know I'm right, NEITHER one is going to help us out or overturn anything. Sure, Jerry's people will tell you that they support "responsible" gun ownership but so will Meg's to get your vote. :rolleyes:

Send all the emails to each and get your canned response to their version of gun ownership. Post them up here and for everyone to read and you'll see how vague they are.

lazs
08-08-2010, 10:51 AM
I can't imagine a gov brown not rubberstamping any gun control law that an anti gun democrat legislature sends across his desk.

We are sooooooooo screwed.... again.

Skidmark
08-08-2010, 11:14 AM
I can't imagine a gov brown not rubberstamping any gun control law that an anti gun democrat legislature sends across his desk.

I can well envision him vetoing bills which infringe on 2A and RKBA, and right to freely keep and buy ammoe as well.

packnrat
08-08-2010, 11:17 AM
if he wants my vote it is gona cost him...in cash. like say 2 or 3 million usd.


.

Ishooter
08-08-2010, 1:44 PM
That's why I keep bringing this up. AG Brown is a friend of gun owners and this is a great opportunity to give us a major help in a low-profile way....
Could you shed some lights on AG Brown on being a friend of gun owner? From what I know, he's a pro Democratic party and most Democratic politicians aren't friends of gun owners. However, individual gun owner may be pro Democratic, but that's just on personal level. When they're in the office, they have to follow the party's directions. I haven't seen any D. Rep in Cali who are friends of gun owners.

Shotgun Man
08-08-2010, 1:54 PM
Could you shed some lights on AG Brown on being a friend of gun owner? From what I know, he's a pro Democratic party and most Democratic politicians aren't friends of gun owners. However, individual gun owner may be pro Democratic, but that's just on personal level. When they're in the office, they have to follow the party's directions. I haven't seen any D. Rep in Cali who are friends of gun owners.

They exist. Senator Rod Wright (http://dist25.casen.govoffice.com/) is democrat, black, represents urban LA, and is thoroughly pro-gun.

dw33b
08-08-2010, 1:59 PM
I guess I won't vote for Jerry Bronw then. ;)

Vox
08-08-2010, 2:02 PM
Could you shed some lights on AG Brown on being a friend of gun owner? From what I know, he's a pro Democratic party and most Democratic politicians aren't friends of gun owners. However, individual gun owner may be pro Democratic, but that's just on personal level. When they're in the office, they have to follow the party's directions. I haven't seen any D. Rep in Cali who are friends of gun owners.

he filed an amicus brief in McDonald for incorporation... that's pretty "pro-gun owner" I don't know whathe's done while in office as AG to that end though.

HowardW56
08-08-2010, 2:29 PM
Could you shed some lights on AG Brown on being a friend of gun owner? From what I know, he's a pro Democratic party and most Democratic politicians aren't friends of gun owners. However, individual gun owner may be pro Democratic, but that's just on personal level. When they're in the office, they have to follow the party's directions. I haven't seen any D. Rep in Cali who are friends of gun owners.

Jerry Brown wrote California's brief in McDonald... Read it and you see his position on the 2nd Amendment...

Shotgun Man
08-08-2010, 2:36 PM
Jerry Brown wrote California's brief in McDonald... Read it and you see his position on the 2nd Amendment...

Did he actually write it? That would mean a lot, but I doubt that he personally wrote the brief.

HowardW56
08-08-2010, 2:41 PM
Did he actually write it? That would mean a lot, but I doubt that he personally wrote the brief.

Search here, he actually wrote it.

Shotgun Man
08-08-2010, 2:49 PM
Search here, he actually wrote it.

If he actually wrote it, that speaks a lot for his character. If I was AG no way in hell would I be writing briefs, especially when I could be out raising money to be governor.

HowardW56
08-08-2010, 2:50 PM
If he actually wrote, that speaks a lot for his character. If I was AG now way in hell would I be writing briefs.

He made the decision to do it....

bwiese
08-08-2010, 3:00 PM
I can well envision him vetoing bills which infringe on 2A and RKBA...

Bingo. That's what it's about.

Breathning space, so we can work in the courts without a buncha new laws assaulting us.

And given the state is broke he doesn't have to say he's pro-gun he can just mutter something about how the new laws seem ineffective and there's no proper funding for them.

thayne
08-08-2010, 4:51 PM
Did he actually write it? That would mean a lot, but I doubt that he personally wrote the brief.

he personally wrote it against the advise of his advisers

bwiese
08-08-2010, 4:54 PM
They exist. Senator Rod White (http://dist25.casen.govoffice.com/) is democrat, black, represents urban LA, and is thoroughly pro-gun.

3 or 4 years ago he was CRPA Legislator of the Year.

One NRA guy told me that when an anti legislator was blocking one of Wright's pro-gun bills, he picked up the legislator by the collar and threw him against the wall. The blocking action stopped.

Shotgun Man
08-08-2010, 4:57 PM
3 or 4 years ago he was CRPA Legislator of the Year.

One NRA guy told me that when an anti legislator was blocking one of Wright's pro-gun bills, he picked up the legislator by the collar and threw him against the wall. The blocking action stopped.

HaHa! I'm surprised he wasn't charged with battery.

ETA: I misspelled his name. It is Sen. Rod Wright. If you could correct my quote in your post, it would be helpful.

E Pluribus Unum
08-08-2010, 5:00 PM
Here is my problem with Meg.


The only thing worse than a bad Democrat in office, is a bad Republican in office. If she gets in ans screws the pooch (which I think she will), then it makes the whole party look bad.

I don't trust her because of her smear ads.

Window_Seat
08-08-2010, 6:54 PM
Sen. Wright voted for passage of SB 41, which was a DROS bill that would have required additional paperwork and documentation on the date of delivery of all firearms to a buyer. SB 41 was vetoed.

Erik.

hoffmang
08-08-2010, 7:13 PM
Sen. Wright voted for passage of SB 41, which was a DROS bill that would have required additional paperwork and documentation on the date of delivery of all firearms to a buyer. SB 41 was vetoed.

Erik.

SB-41 wasn't an anti-gun bill. It started out as an anti gun bill that was changed to a not so bad bill with a couple of major positives to it. Those positives take a little understanding of chess, but they are there.

-Gene

wildhawker
08-08-2010, 8:20 PM
Sen. (formerly Assemblyman Wright) has been a consistent pro-2A voice from the Dem party who would and does put most of the Reeps to shame.

Sgt Raven
08-08-2010, 8:52 PM
Could you shed some lights on AG Brown on being a friend of gun owner? From what I know, he's a pro Democratic party and most Democratic politicians aren't friends of gun owners. However, individual gun owner may be pro Democratic, but that's just on personal level. When they're in the office, they have to follow the party's directions. I haven't seen any D. Rep in Cali who are friends of gun owners.

Show me which Republicans are truly our friends in California, not by talk, cause talk is cheap, but by their actions. Which Republicans are putting up even little pro gun bills. Chirp, chirp, chirp. :rolleyes: :TFH:

hoffmang
08-08-2010, 9:42 PM
Show me which Republicans are truly our friends in California, not by talk, cause talk is cheap, but by their actions. Which Republicans are putting up even little pro gun bills. Chirp, chirp, chirp. :rolleyes: :TFH:

Are there even 4 in the assembly and senate combined?

-Gene

dantodd
08-08-2010, 9:50 PM
Is there a reason it is bad politics to look for a new letter from the AG on what "good cause" is in light of McDonald. It would seem a relatively low impact request and might be influential to many of the fence-sitting sheriffs. Obviously it wouldn't help out in SF/LA etc.

hoffmang
08-08-2010, 10:41 PM
Is there a reason it is bad politics to look for a new letter from the AG on what "good cause" is in light of McDonald. It would seem a relatively low impact request and might be influential to many of the fence-sitting sheriffs. Obviously it wouldn't help out in SF/LA etc.

It's of little to no value. As soon as the AG leaves office it would be reversed by either current AG candidate.

-Gene

Hippo
08-08-2010, 10:57 PM
Show me which Republicans are truly our friends in California, not by talk, cause talk is cheap, but by their actions. Which Republicans are putting up even little pro gun bills. Chirp, chirp, chirp. :rolleyes: :TFH:

I believe my rep, Curt Hagman, is an advocate of our cause.

Window_Seat
08-08-2010, 10:58 PM
SB-41 wasn't an anti-gun bill. It started out as an anti gun bill that was changed to a not so bad bill with a couple of major positives to it. Those positives take a little understanding of chess, but they are there.

-Gene

I stand corrected.:)

(Edited):

It's of little to no value. As soon as the AG leaves office it would be reversed by either current AG candidate.

-Gene

I can see how that can happen, but do AGs frequently reverse opinions that come from previous AGs of their own party?

Erik.

greasemonkey
08-08-2010, 11:21 PM
Show me which Republicans are truly our friends in California, not by talk, cause talk is cheap, but by their actions. Which Republicans are putting up even little pro gun bills. Chirp, chirp, chirp. :rolleyes: :TFH:

Assemblyman Danny Gilmore curiously has an (R) by his name and for the life of me I can't figure out why he does. But I'd rather have him than Fran Florez, I just threw up in my mouth a little.

jdberger
08-09-2010, 12:14 AM
Sen. (formerly Assemblyman Wright) has been a consistent pro-2A voice from the Dem party who would and does put most of the Reeps to shame.

He gave a pretty impressive speech during the last round of AB 1934, too. Made Cedillo, Leno and Sandana back off a little.

ja308
08-09-2010, 7:53 AM
Mr Rod Wright is a token pro rights democrat .
Where are his speechs condeming the bad gun bills -- proposed and passed by his party?
JA308

lazs
08-09-2010, 8:53 AM
Nope.. no way is brown going to veto any anti second amendment rights bills that his democrat cronies send up to him...

At best.. He will spend an hour of hot air time justifying why he signed. He is a liberal socialist and the whole liberal socialist platform is built on dishonesty.

It is not difficult to come out and say in plain language how you feel about the second. The reason that neither candidate is doing so is because they have something to hide.

Meg may be bad but.. She will probably veto anti second rights bills just to screw with the democrats that sent it up to her.

N6ATF
08-09-2010, 9:26 AM
Meg is practically a CA Democrat and will approve all victim disarmament bills just like she did with the eBay/PayPal policies.

Glock22Fan
08-09-2010, 9:52 AM
Nope.. no way is brown going to veto any anti second amendment rights bills that his democrat cronies send up to him...

At best.. He will spend an hour of hot air time justifying why he signed. He is a liberal socialist and the whole liberal socialist platform is built on dishonesty.

It is not difficult to come out and say in plain language how you feel about the second. The reason that neither candidate is doing so is because they have something to hide.

Meg may be bad but.. She will probably veto anti second rights bills just to screw with the democrats that sent it up to her.

No she won't, she will sign them with relish along with many other bills that she will sign in the hope of appeasing the Dems and eventually getting something she wants out of them.

Bugei
08-09-2010, 9:54 AM
So, the AG can just invalidate any law passed by the legislature (or the people) if he wants to?

Gee. I didn't know that....:rolleyes:

Eh, why not? The US AG does it all the time; he just doesn't enforce the ones he doesn't like.

Glock22Fan
08-09-2010, 10:26 AM
I believe my rep, Curt Hagman, is an advocate of our cause.

I've had a number of emails from him (probably his staff) which position Curt as very much on our side.

berto
08-09-2010, 12:42 PM
Meg may be bad but.. She will probably veto anti second rights bills just to screw with the democrats that sent it up to her.

You realize she's Arnold in a dress, right? Meg will have to work with the dems to accomplish anything. Are you sure she won't trade 2A for something she values more? On what do you base your guess?

Lulfas
08-09-2010, 12:43 PM
HaHa! I'm surprised he wasn't charged with battery.

ETA: I misspelled his name. It is Sen. Rod Wright. If you could correct my quote in your post, it would be helpful.

Look on the bright side, he probably made one more person go learn how to use a gun :D

hoffmang
08-09-2010, 2:45 PM
Nope.. no way is brown going to veto any anti second amendment rights bills that his democrat cronies send up to him...


I've explained all too often why we should expect Mr. Brown to veto bills more reliably than Mrs. Whitman. I expect that you haven't read any of that.

-Gene

jdberger
08-09-2010, 2:53 PM
Mr Rod Wright is a token pro rights democrat .
Where are his speechs condeming the bad gun bills -- proposed and passed by his party?
JA308

Here.
https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/1528 (last 10 minutes)

Anything else?

wildhawker
08-09-2010, 2:58 PM
You realize she's Arnold in a dress, right? Meg will have to work with the dems to accomplish anything. Are you sure she won't trade 2A for something she values more? On what do you base your guess?

When does she wear a dress? The only thing I can tell is she hasn't won the Mr. Universe competition, yet. I do think, however, she was a more than capable double for the Terminator series, although a little awkward in Kindergarten Cop.

Sgt Raven
08-09-2010, 4:25 PM
I've explained all too often why we should expect Mr. Brown to veto bills more reliably than Mrs. Whitman. I expect that you haven't read any of that.

-Gene

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

rem870
08-09-2010, 7:02 PM
Keep in mind Whittman was quoted saying she favors "the same strict gun laws" California already has, I feel like in regards to 2A we are screwed. When choosing the governor we vote for, we should like at other issues, economic, border security, crime, social.....(preferably in that order) ahaha

rem870
08-09-2010, 7:13 PM
As mayor of Oakland Brown took a fairly moderate stance fiscally, and a very conservative stance on crime. Whittman has no political experience, she gave 30,000 dollars to an environmental group that co-authored an environmental protection act which increased regulation and sent unemployment up 13 points. She didn't even vote for 25 years, neither take a strong stance on border security and in regards to education I feel like they both have similar stance, Brown has done more to improve education than she has. I think education, the economy and crime are key issues and Brown has taken more Conservative ACTION, not talk, than Whittman has, until she can prove she will actually stand up for my views fiscally, because I've already given up hope on 2A, I won't consider voting for her.

gazzavc
08-09-2010, 7:41 PM
One NRA guy told me that when an anti legislator was blocking one of Wright's pro-gun bills, he picked up the legislator by the collar and threw him against the wall. The blocking action stopped.


Damn, where's the you-tube video when you want it...............:D

turbogg
08-09-2010, 8:27 PM
She didn't even vote for 25 years

Exactly what the hell is up with that? She couldn't be bothered to vote in any election for 25 years?! Complete apathy about our country's elections/politics turns into I wanna be "your next governor"? That doesn't exactly build a great deal of trust about her past (not even mentioning her ebay decisions), or her political motivations now.

Scarecrow Repair
08-09-2010, 9:08 PM
Whittman ... gave 30,000 dollars to an environmental group that co-authored an environmental protection act which increased regulation and sent unemployment up 13 points

13 points, all by itself! My, my. Are the rest of your stats as reliable?

radioman
08-09-2010, 9:39 PM
Wow I got smoked for my misspelling, I even got a pm asking me to fix it, I can't or just don't know how, to all of you that bothered, I'm sorry, I did try to fix it when it happened. where I was coming from with this post, was this, The AG defends the actions we have in court, does he not? so could he not vacate in the interest of justice, post McDonald. Or is it Mac? We would win by default, and we the tax payer would win as to court cost. Tell the voter how you just saved them MONEY, the dumbest veg in the state would vote for that.

dantodd
08-09-2010, 9:49 PM
Wow I got smoked for my misspelling, I even got a pm asking me to fix it, I can't or just don't know how, to all of you that bothered, I'm sorry, I did try to fix it when it happened. where I was coming from with this post, was this, The AG defends the actions we have in court, does he not? so could he not vacate in the interest of justice, post McDonald. Or is it Mac? We would win by default, and we the tax payer would win as to court cost. Tell the voter how you just saved them MONEY, the dumbest veg in the state would vote for that.

No, the AG cannot vacate a law.

radioman
08-09-2010, 10:07 PM
No, the AG cannot vacate a law.

Not a law, but a lawsuit he could.

hoffmang
08-09-2010, 10:16 PM
Not a law, but a lawsuit he could.

The AG is obligated by the California Constitution to defend California laws.

-Gene

radioman
08-09-2010, 10:33 PM
The AG is obligated by the California Constitution to defend California laws.

-Gene

Even when a law is unconstitutional? and let's face it, most of the gun laws in this state, if not, border unconstitutional, post MacDonald.

Sgt Raven
08-10-2010, 2:53 PM
The AG is obligated by the California Constitution to defend California laws.

-Gene

Then why didn't the state appeal the Prop 187 decision?

andalusi
08-10-2010, 3:09 PM
Then why didn't the state appeal the Prop 187 decision?

Check your history. Then-AG Lundgren did file an appeal.

Mind you, this was the year before the gubernatorial election. Lundgren decided to run for governor and that was pretty much the end of his concern with fighting for Prop 187.

dantodd
08-10-2010, 3:16 PM
The AG is obligated by the California Constitution to defend California laws.

-Gene

Brown could certainly put the same effort into defending bad gun laws that he put into defending Prop 8.

boxbro
08-10-2010, 3:36 PM
Somebody please edit this. It makes us look like idots that do not know how to spell. BROWN not BRONW. When creating post check spelling.

I was more worried about a possible http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTt02VuMtJqocxjy1BjhQCIVX2V5yKRQ mqvtBtTnipueDI2Qts&t=1&usg=__TFkh4o-2O-wliIntfJSD8x9EOUE= tax in the future.

dantodd
08-10-2010, 3:38 PM
I was more worried about a possible http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTt02VuMtJqocxjy1BjhQCIVX2V5yKRQ mqvtBtTnipueDI2Qts&t=1&usg=__TFkh4o-2O-wliIntfJSD8x9EOUE= tax in the future.

LOL... perhaps we should have the 24th amendment brought into the 21st century.

hoffmang
08-10-2010, 5:49 PM
Brown could certainly put the same effort into defending bad gun laws that he put into defending Prop 8.

Don't assume that he isn't...

-Gene

dantodd
08-10-2010, 5:55 PM
Don't assume that he isn't...

-Gene

Are you suggesting we might get quotes like this from Brown if Peruta/Sykes/Pena get to the the 9th circuit and he is Governor? (Obviously won't happen while he is still AG.)

As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons -- because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.

hoffmang
08-10-2010, 6:02 PM
Are you suggesting we might get quotes like this from Brown if Peruta/Sykes/Pena get to the the 9th circuit and he is Governor? (Obviously won't happen while he is still AG.)

Once he's out of the AG's office we're not likely to get such things.

-Gene

radioman
08-10-2010, 9:14 PM
I was more worried about a possible http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTt02VuMtJqocxjy1BjhQCIVX2V5yKRQ mqvtBtTnipueDI2Qts&t=1&usg=__TFkh4o-2O-wliIntfJSD8x9EOUE= tax in the future.

what I said, it is as unjust as. but if your ok with the BOF putting their hand into your pocket and taking what they want, forget I said anything. But if all we do is pick on the spelling, brake out the ky, we are going need it.

boxbro
08-11-2010, 5:07 PM
what I said, it is as unjust as. but if your ok with the BOF putting their hand into your pocket and taking what they want, forget I said anything. But if all we do is pick on the spelling, brake out the ky, we are going need it.

It was just a lighthearted joke.

Secret
08-11-2010, 8:23 PM
im still in awe that my neighbhors voted schwarzenegger

dantodd
08-11-2010, 9:16 PM
what I said, it is as unjust as. but if your ok with the BOF putting their hand into your pocket and taking what they want, forget I said anything. But if all we do is pick on the spelling, brake out the ky, we are going need it.

Well. If you want to get picky then the reason poll taxes are illegal is the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.

motorhead
08-12-2010, 11:55 AM
he's done an ok job as ag. he should remain ag. IMHO, as governor he's just another democratic union shill.

rem870
08-17-2010, 2:56 PM
13 points, all by itself! My, my. Are the rest of your stats as reliable?

Positive, I found it on a non-partisan fact check website when I was comparing the two.

dfletcher
08-17-2010, 4:11 PM
Positive, I found it on a non-partisan fact check website when I was comparing the two.

It would be helpful if you'd post that link.

Scarecrow Repair
08-17-2010, 6:01 PM
Positive, I found it on a non-partisan fact check website when I was comparing the two.

I only ask because you claim that one deed pushed unemployment up 13 points all by itself, yet this link (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+chart) shows US unemployment only recently hit a high of 10.5% or so since 1990. Even California by itself hasn't been much over 13%. I don't think US unemployment has ever been below 3% ever, usually 5% or so, so your 13% seems a bit ... odd...

kcbrown
08-24-2010, 10:47 PM
I only ask because you claim that one deed pushed unemployment up 13 points all by itself, yet this link (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+chart) shows US unemployment only recently hit a high of 10.5% or so since 1990. Even California by itself hasn't been much over 13%. I don't think US unemployment has ever been below 3% ever, usually 5% or so, so your 13% seems a bit ... odd...

He may be speaking in terms of basis points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_point).