PDA

View Full Version : State AW bans illegal


Cato
08-28-2006, 12:10 AM
Some thoughts...

These past few weeks I've been wondering what it would take to get SB23 taken off the books. I have come to the realization that the voters would never overturn SB23. However, what if on the federal level all statewide bans were deemed illegal? I really think the NRA should get on this.

blkA4alb
08-28-2006, 12:12 AM
Some thoughts...

These past few weeks I've been wondering what it would take to get SB23 taken off the books. I have come to the realization that the voters would never overturn SB23. However, what if on the federal level all statewide bans were deemed illegal? I really think the NRA should get on this.
I don't see that happening so much as I see SB23 getting thrown out for being to confusing and ambiguous. More thoughts later...

GJJ
08-28-2006, 4:37 AM
I wish we had something like some sort of protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. That would be cool. Then, we could get rid of:

AWB bans
waiting periods
tests
one gun a month laws
cosmetic bans

Yep. If the founders of the constitution would have only thought ahead...

Charliegone
08-28-2006, 9:31 AM
I wish we had something like some sort of protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. That would be cool. Then, we could get rid of:

AWB bans
waiting periods
tests
one gun a month laws
cosmetic bans

Yep. If the founders of the constitution would have only thought ahead...

Well, they assumed no one in their right mind would try to do such a thing....unfortunately we have those "not in the right mind" that do in this state.:rolleyes:

TannerBoyl
08-28-2006, 9:58 AM
Since our lawmakers have determined that the 2nd Amendment doesn't pertain to the individual, but rather for the state government :rolleyes:, I believe we're pretty much SOL.

Our only shot at getting SB23 removed would either be to get the right to keep and bear arms into the California Constitution. The movement early this year to get the RTKBA in the California Constitution fell short. Hopefully, we will have learned from past mistakes the next time around.

jnojr
08-28-2006, 10:15 AM
Our only shot at getting SB23 removed would either be to get the right to keep and bear arms into the California Constitution. The movement early this year to get the RTKBA in the California Constitution fell short. Hopefully, we will have learned from past mistakes the next time around.

There are too many supposedly pro-gun people who are actually opposed to this. Don't ask me why... but no real, organized group (NRA, CRPA, GOC, etc.) will get behind it, and nobody is willing to form and support the organization required to make it happen. CA RKBA is pretty much a dead issue without something at the Federal level overturning the unConstitutional restrictions in place here.

chiefcrash
08-28-2006, 10:26 AM
I wish we had something like some sort of protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. That would be cool. Then, we could get rid of:

AWB bans
waiting periods
tests
one gun a month laws
cosmetic bans

Yep. If the founders of the constitution would have only thought ahead...

i'm sure someone will shoot me for saying this, but i don't care a whole lot about waiting periods. It doesn't really screw my life up to have to wait 10 days to pick up my gun.

I wish i could piss on the guy who wrote the AW bans though. The way i see it, if it doesn't restrict what i can have, i'm ok. i can't think of any situation where i *NEED* that shotgun or rifle RIGHT NOW. and if i was in a situation where i needed it immediately, i'm probably in a state of mind where i shouldn't get one...

GJJ
08-28-2006, 10:37 AM
Chiefcrash, I won't kill this thread by flaming you. I will be polite. But, any infringement is illegal. Even if an infringement doesn't bother you personally, you should be against it for the reason that one infringement legitimizes other infringements. Where does it stop? Also, need is not the yardstick that we use to exercise our RIGHTS. You don't need a TV, Car, or a piano. In a free country, wanting one is good enough. The "need" fallacy is straight from communism. "To each according to his need. From each according to his ability".

chiefcrash
08-28-2006, 10:46 AM
Chiefcrash, I won't kill this thread by flaming you. I will be polite. But, any infringement is illegal. Even if an infringement doesn't bother you personally, you should be against it for the reason that one infringement legitimizes other infringements. Where does it stop? Also, need is not the yardstick that we use to exercise our RIGHTS. You don't need a TV, Car, or a piano. In a free country, wanting one is good enough. The "need" fallicy is straight from communism. "To each according to his need. From each according to his ability".

but is a waiting period really an infringment? a 5-10 day wait doesn't stop you from buying anything and everything you want. and (at the risk of sounding like Brady) it does do good. what are the negative side effects of a 5 day wait?

The Soup Nazi
08-28-2006, 10:50 AM
but is a waiting period really an infringment? a 5-10 day wait doesn't stop you from buying anything and everything you want. and (at the risk of sounding like Brady) it does do good. what are the negative side effects of a 5 day wait?

Are you kidding me? Yes it is an infringement. People are fine with buying something and taking it home a few minutes later, the world hasn't gone to crap in the other states of America with just the instant background check.

...I really can't believe that you would tolerate a wait when it does nothing but put us at an inconveniance. If you think people won't kill people after a "5-10 day cooling period", then they'll use something they don't have to wait for! Gun? 10 days? I'll just stab someone with a knife then! Theres no waiting period for that, its simpler to use, and it can be more effective in certain cases! Besides, the people who intend on using a gun for a crime don't have to deal with it themselves because they BUY THEIR GUNS ILLEGALY. That means no waiting period OR backgorund check. It screws /US/ over. And for the criminals stupid enough to try to buy a gun legally, if they're willing to do things the "legal way", then they're probably patient enough to wait anyways.

MikeK
08-28-2006, 11:01 AM
I wish i could piss on the guy who wrote the AW bans though.
http://home.earthlink.net/~bazillion/purdy.jpg

MikeK
08-28-2006, 11:02 AM
Are you kidding me? Yes it is an infringement. People are fine with buying something and taking it home a few minutes later, the world hasn't gone to crap in the other states of America with just the instant background check.

...I really can't believe that you would tolerate a wait when it does nothing but put us at an inconveniance. If you think people won't kill people after a "5-10 day cooling period", then they'll use something they don't have to wait for! Gun? 10 days? I'll just stab someone with a knife then! Theres no waiting period for that, its simpler to use, and it can be more effective in certain cases! Besides, the people who intend on using a gun for a crime don't have to deal with it themselves because they BUY THEIR GUNS ILLEGALY. That means no waiting period OR backgorund check. It screws /US/ over. And for the criminals stupid enough to try to buy a gun legally, if they're willing to do things the "legal way", then they're probably patient enough to wait anyways.
Sorry. I don't have a problem with it either.

50BMGBOB
08-28-2006, 11:02 AM
I have a lot of guns already. A waiting period does NOTHING. If they can make you wait, then what s stopping them from making it longer? 30 days? A year? 10 years? If the waiting period is to run a background check then 10 minites later you should be able to take your gun and leave! people that aren't stable will do something with or without a gun. And the time it takes to go buy one doesn't make you more stable!

bwiese
08-28-2006, 11:06 AM
... too many supposedly pro-gun people who are actually opposed to this. Don't ask me why... but no real, organized group (NRA, CRPA, GOC, etc.) will get behind it, and nobody is willing to form and support the organization required to make it happen. CA RKBA is pretty much a dead issue without something at the Federal level overturning the unConstitutional restrictions in place here.

I won't ask you why, because you're wrong. NRA would love to get behind an RKBA if they had the money.

Major ballot propositions are big biz in CA. They require TV, radio and newspaper time, regional on-the-ground coordinators, spokesmen in various areas, and lawyers, plus herds of paid signature takers. I believe some of the Indian gaming stuff was $150+ million dollars. Probably even more with tobacco-related stuff or redistricting. Things like the fight against Prop 75 were probably funded with pension money from other friendly unions' coffers.

Senior NRA leadership told me that even moderate support of an RKBA proposition, to do it full justice and have a smidgen of a chance to fight, would cost at least $100+ Million (don't remember the exact figure) - with maximal volunteer support from every CA NRA member on top of that. And there'd be a lot of risk - the NRA is not gonna spend a decent fraction of its endowment or yearly intake for one battle that doesn't offer a sure bet. They've had some very smart nationally-recognized political analysts come in (didn't know this) when RKBA was being talked about and looked at its chances.

Some dudes gathering 7 signatures a day at a couple of gunstores and surplus shops, along with some friendly Costcos, doesn't cut this.

Chances for approval increase if Katrina-like events or Rodney Riots occurred and people suddenly valued their RKBA. Coordinating/synchronizing a ballot offensive with a crisis is well-nigh impossible though.

The danger of underfunded half-hearted attempts is that there's risk it taints the status or the overall concept - very much like a house that stays on the market too long: a smart realtor pulls it off market for awhile before it becomes 'tainted goods' and then re-lists it, perhaps with some changes in the deal, staging, etc.

Stanze
08-28-2006, 11:52 AM
My whole argument is that if a state can pass a law violating the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment etc. And, the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Then, why not for the 2nd amendment???:mad:

chiefcrash
08-28-2006, 12:03 PM
i guess my position on waiting periods is slightly different. allow me to devulge a bit more:

A friend of mine went nuts on night. He went suicidal on me. From what he told me, he wanted to kill himself, but was at a delema. He didn't want something slow or painful like knives/hanging/jumping/etc would be. He didn't have any pills to take either. He went to a gun store (never bought a gun before), and was turned away because he needed to wait 10 days before he could have it. He took it as a sign and got some help. He's still alive to this day...

As for me, a 10 day wait has never stopped me from buying any gun i wanted. Never even entered into the equation. I was never like "hmm, i really want that rifle, but i gotta wait 10 days..." I just don't see the huge deal. Sure, i'd rather be able to walk out with my rifle the same day, but if it's worth my $500, it's worth the wait. Makes finally gettin' to shoot it even sweeter.

I can understand the position some of you take: allow no legislation between me and my gun. That's fine. I encourage it even. And when it comes to any piece of legislation that says "you can't have that" or "you need a permit for that", i'm with you. But i can afford to wait 10 days...

ohsmily
08-28-2006, 12:12 PM
My whole argument is that if a state can pass a law violating the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment etc. And, the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Then, why not for the 2nd amendment???:mad:

Because the Second Amendment, as current jurisprudence stands, does not apply to the states. Eventually, the Supreme Court will accept a case to settle this issue.

ketec_owner
08-28-2006, 1:05 PM
I still think there is some basis for challenge. Recommended reading on this topic is the california supreme court ruling on the challenges to SB23 and roberti-roos as well as the supreme court rulings. You'll find that some of the actual reasons the court ruled as they did. My opinion on the subject is that it is still challengable - just not on the previous argument basis. Lawsuits before this have argued equal protection - but the court ruled that equal protection applies to people and not a class of firearms.

Charliegone
08-28-2006, 1:20 PM
i guess my position on waiting periods is slightly different. allow me to devulge a bit more:

A friend of mine went nuts on night. He went suicidal on me. From what he told me, he wanted to kill himself, but was at a delema. He didn't want something slow or painful like knives/hanging/jumping/etc would be. He didn't have any pills to take either. He went to a gun store (never bought a gun before), and was turned away because he needed to wait 10 days before he could have it. He took it as a sign and got some help. He's still alive to this day...

As for me, a 10 day wait has never stopped me from buying any gun i wanted. Never even entered into the equation. I was never like "hmm, i really want that rifle, but i gotta wait 10 days..." I just don't see the huge deal. Sure, i'd rather be able to walk out with my rifle the same day, but if it's worth my $500, it's worth the wait. Makes finally gettin' to shoot it even sweeter.

I can understand the position some of you take: allow no legislation between me and my gun. That's fine. I encourage it even. And when it comes to any piece of legislation that says "you can't have that" or "you need a permit for that", i'm with you. But i can afford to wait 10 days...

You know. This just got me thinking. How about a wait period for the first gun you buy but after that no waiting. Since you'd already have one, there is really no logical explanation to have a waiting period for the second one if you are suicidal or pissed off. I know it might not sit well with some of you, but..hey every little bit counts right?

Cato
08-28-2006, 1:31 PM
I have a lot of guns already. A waiting period does NOTHING. If they can make you wait, then what s stopping them from making it longer? 30 days? A year? 10 years? If the waiting period is to run a background check then 10 minites later you should be able to take your gun and leave! people that aren't stable will do something with or without a gun. And the time it takes to go buy one doesn't make you more stable!
____________________________________________
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the state of Mass, you have to wait 40 days! In Hawaii you have to go to the police station to get a permit to buy. That could take a couple weeks!

Bling Bling 2.0
08-28-2006, 1:50 PM
I don't mind the wait one bit if it keeps a gun out of the hands of a "crazy". Everytime some nutcase shoots up a school it makes me as a gun owner look bad. As a responsible and safe gun owner I don't want anyone near a gun who doesn't understand it or has a very liberal view of reality. Background checks are completely legit for me. As others have stated, my beef are with the gun grabbers. Who are they to say that I'm irresponsible with my firearms or that society can't trust me with a 11 round magazine? It's pitiful!

Of course there needs to be serious criteria and standards for background checks. They should never be used to exclude any religious (yes, even islamic), ethnic, or political groups (other than non citizens).

grammaton76
08-28-2006, 2:05 PM
Problem is, if we HAVE a waiting period, whenever a crazy does shoot up somewhere, the anti's can scream that it wasn't effective and we need to escalate the bans further.

If there wasn't a waiting period, then they'll just scream that we need to introduce one.

GJJ
08-28-2006, 2:10 PM
In summary, the dialog in this thread is a big part of why our gun rights have been trashed in California. Even many gunowners don't understand the nature of freedom and our rights under the constitution.

If many gunowners can be that clueless, the rest of society will be even worse.

Since the state is god, how about waiting periods and tests for voting, having children, and getting married?

MikeK
08-28-2006, 2:23 PM
If many gunowners can be that clueless, the rest of society will be even worse.

Bull.

You listen to all of the crap being spewed by the right-wing republicans about how we need to give up some of our personal freedoms in defference to National Safety (Read: The Patriot Act) and yet the idea of giving up a few of our gun rights in the name of Personal Safety is wrong.

You know, the same people fighting for gun rights are the same people saying that your phone records should be open to the government and other such BS.

Irony FTW.

sac7000
08-28-2006, 2:27 PM
Well it just so happens that I enjoy the 10 day wait, gives me time to cool off when my old lady drinks all my beer even though I've got loaded guns scattered all over doublewide. I'm telling ya that 10 day wait has saved her butt numerous times.

I also particularly enjoy paying the $25 dros fees every friggin time I buy a new gun even if it's several times a month. I'm sure the state needs my money to help offset the cost of printing anti-gun comic books for schools. We don't need no chillins running loose in the street with assault weapons.

Ya, I'm a happy camper when it comes to guns and living in California. Who wouldn't be?

chiefcrash
08-28-2006, 2:30 PM
In summary, the dialog in this thread is a big part of why our gun rights have been trashed in California. Even many gunowners don't understand the nature of freedom and our rights under the constitution.

the problem is, NO ONE understands our rights under the constitution. The constitution did not spell it out to where it says citizens can have any type of weapon that's available. It's vague. This forces us to interpret what was meant. My interpretation will be different than yours. Yours will be different from Sarah Brady's. Brady's will be different from Michael Moore's. Moore's is different than Charlton Heston's. Heston's will be different than a 5 year old child's. It's like trying to interpret the Bible...

Personally, in *my* ideal world: a guy goes through a through background check. He takes a test to make sure he's aware of the current laws (don't shoot at people, don't shoot at buildings, don't threaten people with it, don't shoot up into the air on the 4th of july, what have you). Then he has to wait 5-10 days ON PURCHASING THE FIRST GUN. Past that, give him a freakin' grenade launcher if he wants it. if/when he screws up and does something stupid with his weapons, cut his nuts off...

GJJ
08-28-2006, 2:32 PM
Mike, I don't know what your point is? Gun control for the mirage of safety is wrong. Giving up your freedom in other areas is wrong too.

I think you and I are in complete agreement.

Many, many Republicans sound like fascists calling for more restrictions against our rights in the name of patriotism. The so called right is falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Ironically, if Hillary would have passed the patriot act, campaign finance reform and the futile Iraq war - the same "right wingers" would have screamed bloody murder.

But, GWB is a republican. So, it is all okay.

blacklisted
08-28-2006, 2:36 PM
Bull.

You listen to all of the crap being spewed by the right-wing republicans about how we need to give up some of our personal freedoms in defference to National Safety (Read: The Patriot Act) and yet the idea of giving up a few of our gun rights in the name of Personal Safety is wrong.

You know, the same people fighting for gun rights are the same people saying that your phone records should be open to the government and other such BS.

Irony FTW.

Please don't speak for others.

Are you saying

"right-wing republicans" - sacrificing privacy is good, sacrificing gun rights is bad

You - sacrificing privacy is bad, sacrificing some gun rights is good

I don't see the difference.

Infringement on gun rights is just as bad as infringement on privacy. Also, not all of us are "right-wing republicans". :rolleyes:

Me - sacrificing privacy is terrible, sacrificing gun rights is terrible

chiefcrash
08-28-2006, 2:45 PM
this is the point in the heated debate where i shall suggest we all take a break and have a nice piece of pie....

mmmm, pie....

mikehaas
08-28-2006, 2:48 PM
Waiting periods are an infringment because a person may need a gun to protect themselves in short order. Any situation that legally justifies a restraining order is an example. Any nut that decides he/she will make you the focus of his deranged attention is a reason. In fighting waiting period laws, NRA used testimony from individuals that got in bad with someone, borrowed or bought a gun and that tool was used to save their life within days.

Remember the LA Riots? NRA pubicized the lines of folks trying to buy guns and especially one chap who was heard yelling above the crowd - "THIS IS AMERICA, I DON'T HAVE TO WAIT!"

I doubt waiting periods have ever saved a life, not a single one, or done anything but further endanger people already in trouble and hassle law-abiding citizens that would never effect violence on another (save a self-defense situation).

I personally know one gun dealer that didn't want to sell to a certain individual. Bunch of reasons, probably not the least of which was the guy had once crashed into a series of cars on a street out of pure rage. During the waiting period, he contacted LEO's with his misgivings and was told straight out "If you aren't a psychiatrist, give the guy his gun," inferring the dealer was a jerk for bothering them.

Within months, that gun buyer went on a rampage, took over a bar at gunpoint, then proceeded to rape and kill several people.

CA lawmakers constantly pile "feel good" BS like waiting periods and 1 gun/month on law-abiding gun-owners, but fail to address crime in any significant way. They are political cowards and we pay the price.

Mike

MikeK
08-28-2006, 2:55 PM
Please don't speak for others.

Are you saying

"right-wing republicans" - sacrificing privacy is good, sacrificing gun rights is bad

You - sacrificing privacy is bad, sacrificing some gun rights is good

I don't see the difference.

Infringement on gun rights is just as bad as infringement on privacy. Also, not all of us are "right-wing republicans". :rolleyes:

Me - sacrificing privacy is terrible, sacrificing gun rights is terrible
You know, I typed out a big response and then figured it wasn't worth it.

If you couldn't get the fact that right-wing is as bad as left-wing, only for different agendas from the original post, then it's not worth explaining.

Move along. Nothing to see. ;)

MikeK
08-28-2006, 2:57 PM
Mike, I don't know what your point is? Gun control for the mirage of safety is wrong. Giving up your freedom in other areas is wrong too.

I think you and I are in complete agreement.

Many, many Republicans sound like fascists calling for more restrictions against our rights in the name of patriotism. The so called right is falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Ironically, if Hillary would have passed the patriot act, campaign finance reform and the futile Iraq war - the same "right wingers" would have screamed bloody murder.

But, GWB is a republican. So, it is all okay.
Agreed. This is my point. Both sides are part of the problem, but because one supports "gun rights" then it's okay that they crap on the rest of the constitution.

Go figure.

MikeK
08-28-2006, 2:58 PM
Waiting periods are an infringment because a person may need a gun to protect themselves in short order.
Be prepared.

-Boy Scout Manual.

If they can figure it out, then adults can purchase a firearm well in advance.

Charliegone
08-28-2006, 2:58 PM
Frankly, I think none of us would like to have waiting period, but since we live California and considering all the negative crap we would get from a rather bias media..we just won't get it. So we can't think "its my way or the highway" because we won't get nothing done...the methods of anti-gunners has been little by little, and it works! Its time we did the same.

sac7000
08-28-2006, 3:05 PM
this is the point in the heated debate where i shall suggest we all take a break and have a nice piece of pie....

mmmm, pie....

I prefer the Powdered Moose myself....

Cato
08-28-2006, 4:09 PM
Guns shouldn't have any restrictions on them whatsoever. It's spelled out there in the Bill of Rights. What if we messed with the prohibition of slavery? Allow states to decide? Then once a slave was to be given freedom, make him take a test, wait a period of time, check his background to see if he can handle the freedom. "Nope, looks like you might end up on welfare with half a dozen kids, sorry, back to the cotton field!" That would be just as wrong.

In my perfect America, Big 5 and Target would carry MP5s, G36s, fully auto M16s. It would be cash and carry. Of course we will still have nuts shoot up the place, but that wouldnt be any different than situations like that elderly driver in Santa Monica who ran over like 15 people. If the citizens were better armed, someone would shoot the crazy man before too many people get killed.

I would add to the 2A a prohibition of say weapons of mass destruction. Suitcase nuclear weapons would be far too dangerous in the hands of the average Joe.

The Soup Nazi
08-28-2006, 4:23 PM
I would add to the 2A a prohibition of say weapons of mass destruction. Suitcase nuclear weapons would be far too dangerous in the hands of the average Joe.

I disagree by principle and practicality. Average joe can have nuke if he wants. The thing is that first, the resources are so expensive that the average joe can't have a nuke. The second thing is that if a person actually has the capability of producing a nuclear weapon, then they A: are not an "average joe", and B: can piss off whatever laws this country might set. If you can build a nuke, you're probably able to subvert the laws as well.

M. Sage
08-28-2006, 4:57 PM
i guess my position on waiting periods is slightly different. allow me to devulge a bit more:

A friend of mine went nuts on night. He went suicidal on me. From what he told me, he wanted to kill himself, but was at a delema. He didn't want something slow or painful like knives/hanging/jumping/etc would be. He didn't have any pills to take either. He went to a gun store (never bought a gun before), and was turned away because he needed to wait 10 days before he could have it. He took it as a sign and got some help. He's still alive to this day...

As for me, a 10 day wait has never stopped me from buying any gun i wanted. Never even entered into the equation. I was never like "hmm, i really want that rifle, but i gotta wait 10 days..." I just don't see the huge deal. Sure, i'd rather be able to walk out with my rifle the same day, but if it's worth my $500, it's worth the wait. Makes finally gettin' to shoot it even sweeter.

I can understand the position some of you take: allow no legislation between me and my gun. That's fine. I encourage it even. And when it comes to any piece of legislation that says "you can't have that" or "you need a permit for that", i'm with you. But i can afford to wait 10 days...

The ten-day wait has discouraged me a couple of times in the past. It's a pain in the ****** to go through.

Would you put up with a waiting period to buy a newspaper or post a message on an online forum or blog? Hell no.

I hate to say it, but waiting periods DO discourage some law abiding people from lawfully buying a firearm. On the flipside, a hypothetical: If someone started stalking my wife and the police were unable/unwilling to do anything about it (not too uncommon...), I would be forced to buy a handgun ILLEGALLY for her to carry ILLEGALLY. Of course, I'd start DROS on a perfectly legal pistol in the meantime, and after the ten days, ditch the ill-gotten one where it wouldn't turn up (leaving the wife still packing unlawfully, but at least not with an illegal firearm).

Ok, so the second illegally is because of our screwed CCW situation, but the first directly relates to the moronic waiting period.

I don't mean to sound insensitive or anything, but if your friend had been committed to killing him/herself, they'd be dead. Someone wants it bad enough, it's going to happen - waiting periods and suicide barriers won't stop it.

WokMaster1
08-28-2006, 5:03 PM
the problem is, NO ONE understands our rights under the constitution. The constitution did not spell it out to where it says citizens can have any type of weapon that's available. It's vague. This forces us to interpret what was meant. My interpretation will be different than yours. Yours will be different from Sarah Brady's. Brady's will be different from Michael Moore's. Moore's is different than Charlton Heston's. Heston's will be different than a 5 year old child's. It's like trying to interpret the Bible...

Personally, in *my* ideal world: a guy goes through a through background check. He takes a test to make sure he's aware of the current laws (don't shoot at people, don't shoot at buildings, don't threaten people with it, don't shoot up into the air on the 4th of july, what have you). Then he has to wait 5-10 days ON PURCHASING THE FIRST GUN. Past that, give him a freakin' grenade launcher if he wants it. if/when he screws up and does something stupid with his weapons, cut his nuts off...


Amen on that. Won't it make sense if California has the toughest gun laws in the country. You can have anything you can afford after you passed a battery of tests. If you F* up, (off with your left nut) & a few years in State pen as Bubba's assistant. I can live with that!

Now the tests would include gun laws, tactical & safety & psychological. Maybe I'm just dreaming.:)

6172crew
08-28-2006, 5:10 PM
Agreed. This is my point. Both sides are part of the problem, but because one supports "gun rights" then it's okay that they crap on the rest of the constitution.

Go figure.

I dont know of one single American effected by the rights you say Republican right wingers ahve taken away but I do see a whole board filled with people who have been effected by left wingnuts.

Your liberal media talking points are for your other board. :)

WokMaster1
08-28-2006, 5:12 PM
this is the point in the heated debate where i shall suggest we all take a break and have a nice piece of pie....

mmmm, pie....

Pie?:D

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800018639/photo/32916

Mudvayne540ld
08-28-2006, 5:17 PM
I don't mind the wait one bit if it keeps a gun out of the hands of a "crazy". Everytime some nutcase shoots up a school it makes me as a gun owner look bad.
There are more effective ways to kill someone in a school setting. A pipebomb I would say is much more devastating then a single firearm. And, ANYONE who has 5min. and basic knowledge can do it. Look at Columbine, their innitial plan was to make use of Propane tanks. there bomb was prety damn simple, nothing you cant build in and hour or 2 and $100.
Maybe we need 10 day wait periods on Propane tanks, and lead/metal pipe fixtures.

Fate
08-28-2006, 5:17 PM
I've read that "CA didn't include the 'right to keep and bear arms' in its Constitution, therefore, you don't get to complain about your 'rights being infringed'" (since they aren't supposedly your rights).

However, that's ludicrous. I don't think that the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage is in the CA Constitution either.

But the document itself shows that CA's more restrictive firearms laws could actually be challenged on a Constitutional basis...a CA Constitutional basis at that!

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

(ok, I can see how firearms could help with the above)

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.
This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people. (emphasis mine)

"Rights retained by the people"...sounds like that means our NATION'S Constitution.

Whatcha think?

blacklisted
08-28-2006, 6:45 PM
You know, I typed out a big response and then figured it wasn't worth it.

If you couldn't get the fact that right-wing is as bad as left-wing, only for different agendas from the original post, then it's not worth explaining.

Move along. Nothing to see. ;)

Isn't that exactly what I said? :rolleyes:

I NEVER said that I disagreed with that.

blacklisted
08-28-2006, 6:46 PM
Agreed. This is my point. Both sides are part of the problem, but because one supports "gun rights" then it's okay that they crap on the rest of the constitution.

Go figure.

Who here is saying that?

6172crew
08-28-2006, 7:41 PM
Who here is saying that?

He did.;) Dont feed the troll.

Bling Bling 2.0
08-29-2006, 7:56 AM
1)How many school yard shooting were the result of a lawful transaction?

2)which mass murderer complied with any law , let alone a waiting period?

3) If I were going to commit a crime of passion, would I use one of the dozens of arms laying about my house, or would I wait 10 days for the oh so speical murder weapon?

4) how many other types of citizens are insulted by asking to "cool off", as if the mere purchase of a weapon requires one to cool off, since the act of acquiring a firearm is automatically suspect...not knives, hammers, automobiles, bathtubs, accelerants etc.. just guns.

5) the 10 day wait has no nexus to a background check, which can take as little as a couple of hours. why is it that a LEO can learn all about your background in minutes on the side of the road, but not when purchasing a firearm. Is it because as a gunowner, I am automatically in a questionable state of mind?

Great questions but I don't think they really address any of the points I made. There are always going to be people that do illegal things, no matter what the law is. Background checks will protect a certain part of the population from themselves and people that are crazy.

In case you don't know there are people walking around out there that have no clue what is going on in their own minds and really have no basis for differentiating you from a mailbox or even a paper target. And they feel no remorse because in their minds IT IS THE SAME.

So if some guy walks into a gun store and tells you that as soon as you sell him the gun, he's going to kill your children. To which you would say "Woah, it's too bad for my children that this guy has a right to have this gun". You may not come across these people in your life but THEY ARE OUT THERE.

6172crew
08-29-2006, 8:19 AM
Great questions but I don't think they really address any of the points I made. There are always going to be people that do illegal things, no matter what the law is. Background checks will protect a certain part of the population from themselves and people that are crazy.

In case you don't know there are people walking around out there that have no clue what is going on in their own minds and really have no basis for differentiating you from a mailbox or even a paper target. And they feel no remorse because in their minds IT IS THE SAME.

So if some guy walks into a gun store and tells you that as soon as you sell him the gun, he's going to kill your children. To which you would say "Woah, it's too bad for my children that this guy has a right to have this gun". You may not come across these people in your life but THEY ARE OUT THERE.

If your a loon then your not allowed to buy a firearm, its already against the law. Id be ok with a 15 min check and a mandatory mental health check but the libs want to keep your mental health a secret from all of us who could be harmed by said loon. As some have already mentioned that if we are going to burden those of us who have a safe full of guns then maybe we should have 10 day waits for propane or any other explosive that way we could save even more lives.

midnitereaper
08-29-2006, 9:19 AM
U.S. Constitution
Article 1 Section 10 -
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

So much for commifornia trying to collect and fine us for our OLL after Jan 07!

Article 4 Section 2 -
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Is the ownership of any and every rifle offered in every other state considered a privilage? Doesn't AZ, NV and many other states allow their citizens to own High cap mags and Colt AR-15 rifles?

Bill of Rights 14th Amendment Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anyone still need proof that this State along with our overall government has just walked all over the peoples rights?

schizrade2
08-29-2006, 11:02 AM
For those of you that think a waiting period is a good thing, try losing someone very close who is "protected" by a restraining order 2 days before the wait period ends. It happened to me. Waiting periods get more people killed than they save. They keep nobody safe. Pull your heads out of the sand. Instant background (NICS) checks do help, waiting periods do not.

kobra
08-29-2006, 11:46 AM
http://home.earthlink.net/~bazillion/purdy.jpg
Is that psycho Patrick Purdy? From the 1989 Stockton Cleveland school shooting? The AK-47 he used in the shooting was purchased in Oregan, so our stupid AW ban would have been useless anyways. He did purchase the handgun in California to blow his brains out.

BTW- You can piss on his grave!

artherd
08-29-2006, 4:17 PM
I dont know of one single American effected by the rights you say Republican right wingers ahve taken away
Uh, Patriot Act?

6172crew
08-29-2006, 5:01 PM
Uh, Patriot Act?

Uh, how does this effect you Ben? Like give me an example to how the patriot act wrecked your day.

Like Today I woke up and there was this black helicopter and it took me to this secret place and sucked your brain waves out and sold them to Jerry next door and I now hear a radio station when I open my mouth.

Now remember no liberal talking points, Ive already heard those.:D

sac7000
08-29-2006, 5:10 PM
Uh, how does this effect you Ben? Like give me an example to how the patriot act wrecked your day.

Like Today I woke up and there was this black helicopter and it took me to this secret place and sucked your brain waves out and sold them to Jerry next door and I now hear a radio station when I open my mouth.

Now remember no liberal talking points, Ive already heard those.:D

I've seen those unmarked black helicopters parked at our little airport. The pilots wore unmarked dark colored jumpsuits. There is not a single marking on the choppers and they are as black as night.

formerTexan
08-29-2006, 10:36 PM
Great thread to my first post, but here goes...
One can take a look at how the 1st and 2nd amendments were written to see how the authors felt:
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice the bolded parts, "shall not be infringed" is a much stronger, absolute statement than "Congress shall make no law". Also, the first amendment, if read quite literally, means that individual states MAY make laws regarding speech/religion/assembly... scary thought

Anyway, the 9th basically secures the idea that rights are not enumerated, ie these "amendments" are really restrictions on what the Fed Gov't can do/restrict or must guarantee (speedy trial, trial by jury, no self-incrimination, etc). Remember, it says "shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law", NOT "the people may bear arms" or "the people should be able to speak freely without fear of prosecution". Madison said of the 9th amendment:
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration
(my emphasis added)

ETD1010
08-29-2006, 10:54 PM
I know this doesn't work as the law is concerned, but I don't think it's legal for states to make laws that go against federal laws. And California's gun laws go against such Federal Laws. Whether or not the AW ban in the Federal side was constitutional or not (which it wasn't) may have given CA the ability to make their own AW ban, but once the Federal ban lifted, the States can't go over the Federal law and keep something out of its citizens hands. That's why the Supreme court has overturned like 75% of the 9ths rulings.. cause they aren't very good at doing what is constitutional. I'm not sure if I've made any sense, but I agree with the title of the thread, and that it is ILLEGAL for California (or any state) to impede on the rights granted by Federal Law.

My only idea for why california CAN keep an AW ban, is because the Federal law does not have a definition of an AW, so therefore maybe the states CAN make one up? But then again, since AW are no longer illegal to posses and shoot, that would make CA in the wrong again... Why on earth can't this go to the Supreme Court to decide and over turn???? It totally should!!!!

blacklisted
08-29-2006, 10:59 PM
Uh, how does this effect you Ben? Like give me an example to how the patriot act wrecked your day.

Like Today I woke up and there was this black helicopter and it took me to this secret place and sucked your brain waves out and sold them to Jerry next door and I now hear a radio station when I open my mouth.

Now remember no liberal talking points, Ive already heard those.:D

I can say that it does seem to put a hold on large financial transactions while the government (or whomever reviews such things) looks it over to see where the money is going to.

blkA4alb
08-29-2006, 11:32 PM
I can say that it does seem to put a hold on large financial transactions while the government (or whomever reviews such things) looks it over to see where the money is going to.
Not to mention the fact of just knowing the fact that my privacy could be breached at anytime.. :rolleyes: .

GJJ
08-30-2006, 5:04 AM
Wait until Hillary is President and you have been declared a terrorist due to your obssession with guns that kill people.

People who understand freedom don't want the gov't to have too much power. They ultimately always abuse it. Duh.

6172crew
08-30-2006, 5:32 AM
Not to mention the fact of just knowing the fact that my privacy could be breached at anytime.. :rolleyes: .

If you think for one second that your privacy couldnt be breached before the P act then Id say you were wrong and that really is the point, I work for a Telco outfit and find "bugs" or listening devices, monitoring devises in the plant that have nothing to do with the P. act.

Im not sure if teh company uses the same name but they were spying on the Black Panthers back in the day, Black Dog Ind is the FBI or one of the comm outfits that they use.

Im not sure about $$ being held for periods at a time because Imm not in that business but seems like they always took to long to cash personal checks.:)

GJJ
08-30-2006, 7:15 AM
Like I said before, when even gunowners are confused about personal liberty, it is no surprize our rights are being trampled.

The state is not god. The state is not your daddy. The state is not your friend. It is a necessary evil. Give it as few powers as humanly possible because it will always abuse them.

Mail order ammo bans
Microstamping
Approved handgun lists
Waiting periods
Tests
Cosmetic bans
One gun a month

Too many to list.

formerTexan
08-30-2006, 1:27 PM
Why on earth can't this go to the Supreme Court to decide and over turn???? It totally should!!!!

I don't know either, I mean if we can get all state's laws regarding purchase and transfer of firearms overturned, that'd be great. We already have Fed level instant check and transfer/sale documentation, why should there be any more of this at the state level?

The possible un-intended consequence of doing this is that it might also overturn Fed. gun laws, like NFA and GCA, which control the transfer, import, and manufacture of machine guns, silencers, SBRs and SBSs. This will be perceived by the general public as allowing these items to be easily sold and bought. While we most certainly would like that, I think most people are ok with the current transfer rules, but would like the ban on the manufacture and of post '86 machine guns lifted. Yes, I do know about post-86 DSs, but you must become a class 3 dealer and have LE letters for demo in order for the ATF to approve the transfer.

ldivinag
08-30-2006, 5:18 PM
So if some guy walks into a gun store and tells you that as soon as you sell him the gun, he's going to kill your children. To which you would say "Woah, it's too bad for my children that this guy has a right to have this gun". You may not come across these people in your life but THEY ARE OUT THERE.

well if i was the salesman, i woulda drew out the handgun in my holster and immediately asked the guy to drop his firearm and lie on the floor.

then, immediately call the cops to report this nut job.

if i werent "packing" i woulda jumped over counter, pound the crap out of the guy and then call the cops.

GJJ
08-30-2006, 6:39 PM
Bling, if he tells you he is going to kill someone, we have laws to deal with that. Intent to commit murder...

Straw man arguement.

just4fun63
08-30-2006, 7:13 PM
I just wanted to go back to the waiting period discussion with this simple issue ....I live 56 miles from the gun store so the waiting period = 112 miles I wouldn't have had to drive. So to comment on the wait not stopping people from getting guns it does. :mad:

aklover_91
08-30-2006, 8:24 PM
I don't know either, I mean if we can get all state's laws regarding purchase and transfer of firearms overturned, that'd be great. We already have Fed level instant check and transfer/sale documentation, why should there be any more of this at the state level?

The possible un-intended consequence of doing this is that it might also overturn Fed. gun laws, like NFA and GCA, which control the transfer, import, and manufacture of machine guns, silencers, SBRs and SBSs. This will be perceived by the general public as allowing these items to be easily sold and bought. While we most certainly would like that, I think most people are ok with the current transfer rules, but would like the ban on the manufacture and of post '86 machine guns lifted. Yes, I do know about post-86 DSs, but you must become a class 3 dealer and have LE letters for demo in order for the ATF to approve the transfer.
I'm not OK with it, every infringment opens the door the next one.

artherd
08-30-2006, 8:42 PM
Uh, how does this effect you Ben? Like give me an example to how the patriot act wrecked your day.
I'd tell you, but it pertains to an ongoing legal matter...

Another result of the Republicans, the waits at airports and having my balls cupped by the new $multibillion TSA. (if you think for a second that airport screenings constitute 'nessecary security' then I've got 50,000something airport employees who walk right onto the ramp every morning without going through a metal detector. Many with criminal records that would make a heroin dealer blush. ) Take your pick with our '2 party in one' system, the Repubs and Dems differ only in exactly WHICH individual rights they want to take away TODAY.

kantstudien
08-30-2006, 9:12 PM
... having my balls cupped by the new $multibillion TSA

Are you complaining? :D

artherd
08-30-2006, 9:14 PM
Are you complaining? :D
This one time, on the way to airplane camp, it was kinda nice, about 5'7", blonde with a perky set of Cs and a sunny disposition. That's the kind of "Search and Siezure" I can get accustomed to!

Bling Bling 2.0
08-30-2006, 9:40 PM
Bling, if he tells you he is going to kill someone, we have laws to deal with that. Intent to commit murder...

Straw man arguement.

My point exactly, we need to have at least SOME laws for restricting the sale of guns, it shouldn't be an absolute right. To protect us from the crazies and the very stupids.

Waiting periods I can't really see. But I'm a firm believer in background checks. I also believe there should be a mandatory 8 hour class every two years for driver education. There are far too many people on the roads today that have no idea what the rules of the road are.

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 11:05 PM
(if you think for a second that airport screenings constitute 'nessecary security' then I've got 50,000something airport employees who walk right onto the ramp every morning without going through a metal detector. Many with criminal records that would make a heroin dealer blush. ).

I don't know what employees you're talking about, but my gf was a flight attendant for close to a year. She did have to go through the security screening to get to work, every single time. She did get front-of-line privileges, but she was still screened.

hoffmang
08-30-2006, 11:19 PM
1. Patriot Act infringing on my rights? I've got about 10 bank transactions a year that get logged to some federal database somewhere. The only pleasant thought about that is that so darn many transactions now go there, they probably don't notice mine or the terrorists anymore... Do you remember when the bank "know your customer" rules caused an outrage? That was before 9/11...

2. There have been interesting studies that show that the reason California has spectacular mass murders is due to a lack of CCW. The data seems to say that even the deranged lunatics are smart enough to know that they should be discouraged by CCW holders. I _really_ wish there was a CCW holder in San Francisco yesterday afternoon to stop the continued hit and run incidents downtown...

-Gene

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 11:47 PM
I _really_ wish there was a CCW holder in San Francisco yesterday afternoon to stop the continued hit and run incidents downtown...

Brings up a good point: what IS the best approach when someone is attempting vehicular homicide on you, when you have a handgun?

I'm assuming the best approach would be, #1 get out of the way, #2 shoot at the tires, and don't attempt to shoot the driver unless you've got, say, crimson trace grips or something?

Ignore legal considerations of who's attacking you at the time, like whether they're driving away or not. Assume this is to the death.

blkA4alb
08-30-2006, 11:50 PM
Brings up a good point: what IS the best approach when someone is attempting vehicular homicide on you, when you have a handgun?

I'm assuming the best approach would be, #1 get out of the way, #2 shoot at the tires, and don't attempt to shoot the driver unless you've got, say, crimson trace grips or something?

Ignore legal considerations of who's attacking you at the time, like whether they're driving away or not. Assume this is to the death.
Like a cage match? :rolleyes: :D .

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 11:53 PM
Like a cage match? :rolleyes: :D .

Yep, one big cage match. Well, or at least a parking lot so big that if you tried to run, you'd just get run over.

GJJ
08-31-2006, 8:20 AM
I had a female TSA employee ask to touch me around the waist area. I told her only if she promised to call me afterward. I made her laugh.

We are in such a Nazi police state that it seems normal.

KDOFisch
08-31-2006, 12:34 PM
2. There have been interesting studies that show that the reason California has spectacular mass murders is due to a lack of CCW. The data seems to say that even the deranged lunatics are smart enough to know that they should be discouraged by CCW holders. I _really_ wish there was a CCW holder in San Francisco yesterday afternoon to stop the continued hit and run incidents downtown...

-Gene

There was this episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t once- I've seen it referenced here as well I think. It was all about gun control, CCW etc. So they had this interview with a young, professional-looking woman whose family was shot to death in a Texas restaurant right in front of her by some psycho.

So Penn says that one would expect her to be all for gun control, being the victim of such a wretched experience. Rather, she regrets having followed the law by leaving her firearm in the glovebox of her car while in the restaurant. I paraphrase her by saying that the presence of her handgun in the restaurant that day wouldn't have saved her family's life with certainty, but it would've evened the odds at least.

I don't want to kill anyone, just like no one else on this forum probably really wants to take another human from this life. But I like anyone else would never hesitate to defend myself against an equally armed and motivated threat. I'm not a violent person; I'm not helpless, either.

Fate
08-31-2006, 7:45 PM
There was this episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t once- I've seen it referenced here as well I think. It was all about gun control, CCW etc. So they had this interview with a young, professional-looking woman whose family was shot to death in a Texas restaurant right in front of her by some psycho.

So Penn says that one would expect her to be all for gun control, being the victim of such a wretched experience. Rather, she regrets having followed the law by leaving her firearm in the glovebox of her car while in the restaurant. I paraphrase her by saying that the presence of her handgun in the restaurant that day wouldn't have saved her family's life with certainty, but it would've evened the odds at least.
And now she's an elected official (I think US House of Representatives...but can't remember). Also ironic...the gun that she had been carrying illegally for sometime, but left in the car that day, was given to her by a friend...A DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

Gotta love Texas. :D