PDA

View Full Version : Brainstorming: Proposition to repeal RRAWCA and SB23 (and others) possible?


Smokeybehr
02-12-2011, 10:24 AM
I've been pondering what the possibility of crafting a state Proposition to be put on the ballot in order to wipe out the plethora of gun laws in the state.

I know it's impossible to go after all of them at once, though that would be nice, so eliminating them piece by piece would be the way to go. Start with the whole Roberti-Roos AWCA and SB23 mess to get rid of the whole "Assault Weapon" definition, then get rid of the "Safe Handgun" roster, change "May Issue" to "Shall Issue" for CCWs (a la AB357), repeal SB50, then on to getting rid of the restrictions on NFA goodies, and finally Constitutional Carry. If it's easier to do things in a different order, then the order of things would obviously change.

Since it's rather easy to amend the State Constitution, maybe a starting point could be the addition of Second Amendment type language, which would make all of the above just that much easier.

As the title says, I'm just brainstorming, so I'd like the REAL legal types to chime in on the feasibility of such a course of action.

PsychGuy274
02-12-2011, 10:43 AM
Ballot measures aren't going to change a thing in California. We, as gun owners, are the small percentage of people that are not brainwashed by the media.

Our battles are best saved for the courts.

OleCuss
02-12-2011, 11:05 AM
Unfortunately, I pretty much agree with PsychGuy.

Even if you put what I would consider obvious, no-brainer RKBA language into a ballot proposition it would lose badly. Well, if we were able to generate $70-80 million dollars in support (ads) we might have a shot at it - but it would still be a near thing.

Upshot is that if each and every member of CGF donated around $1200 to the cause we just might have a shot at it. Of course, with that kind of funding we'd be far better off chunking about 1/2 of it to CGF to sue the pants off everyone in sight and the rest to CRPA to make them the lobbyists from hell and start electing RKBA-friendly legislators.

I just don't see ballot measures as a viable option for the RKBA.

That said, if Brandon/CRPA advanced such a proposition this year I might actually be able to swing the $1200.

Gray Peterson
02-12-2011, 11:10 AM
Ballot measures to repeal AW bans or even to put in a Constitutional Amendment RKBA into the constitution of California has similar chances to the voters of Alabama circa 1950 repealing their racial segregation laws. Not gonna happen....

Window_Seat
02-12-2011, 11:16 AM
And agreed on my part as well...

We have unfortunately failed at the Ballot Box, and we are working in the Jury Box as we speak. The cases (below) in my sig line are what we are mainly focused on, especially Richards & Peterson. Infact, there has been very recent activity in Richards. Once we are done, then we go after the Roster, and then maybe the RRAWCA (in court).

Erik.

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 11:19 AM
+10,000 to all above.

The ballot box is far too risky.
We would have to spend millions to even have a chance at winning, and when we don't win, it will provide a 10 year supply of fuel for the antis to use against.

And we would not win, because the majority of Californians, and even a good percentage of gun owners, believe that there is nothing wrong with our current gun laws.

We are far better off spending 10% of the amount and using the courts. We have long standing law on our side.

wildhawker
02-12-2011, 11:28 AM
If 10% of CA gun owners would contribute $10, 1% of CA gun owners contribute $100, and 0.1% of CA gun owners contribute $1000... oh, the fun we would have...

The reality is that there are probably only a thousand or so Californians who donate to gun orgs outside of membership dues. With a state as large, heavily-populated, and invested in guns as we definitely are, it's actually pretty pathetic.

PsychGuy274
02-12-2011, 11:30 AM
And agreed on my part as well...

We have unfortunately failed at the Ballot Box, and we are working in the Jury Box as we speak. The cases (below) in my sig line are what we are mainly focused on, especially Richards & Peterson. Infact, there has been very recent activity in Richards. Once we are done, then we go after the Roster, and then maybe the RRAWCA (in court).

Erik.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. We do all that we can, but there are so few of us that we realistically have no noticeable impact.

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 11:37 AM
If 10% of CA gun owners would contribute $10, 1% of CA gun owners contribute $100, and 0.1% of CA gun owners contribute $1000... oh, the fun we would have...

The reality is that there are probably only a thousand or so Californians who donate to gun orgs outside of membership dues. With a state as large, heavily-populated, and invested in guns as we definitely are, it's actually pretty pathetic.
Bingo.

We've only collected half of the less than $100k needed for the CCW Sunshine Initiative, and this has been going for how many months?


It would take us 10 years to come up with the funding to just put a repeal of SB23 on the ballot... and another 20 years to pay for the advertising to actually win it.

We need a sugar daddy ;)

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 11:45 AM
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. We do all that we can, but there are so few of us that we realistically have no noticeable impact.
I think his point is that Californians (not necessarily "we" as in those on this forum) continue to elect and re-elect people like Boxer, DiFi, Harris, Lockyer, Hutchins, etc.....
That doesn't bode well for a Pro-2A ballot measure.

PsychGuy274
02-12-2011, 12:09 PM
I think his point is that Californians (not necessarily "we" as in those on this forum) continue to elect and re-elect people like Boxer, DiFi, Harris, Lockyer, Hutchins, etc.....
That doesn't bode well for a Pro-2A ballot measure.

Ah, my bad :D

Librarian
02-12-2011, 12:51 PM
And just for the longer answer about putting such a question on a ballot ... http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156804

Bhobbs
02-12-2011, 3:18 PM
I think his point is that Californians (not necessarily "we" as in those on this forum) continue to elect and re-elect people like Boxer, DiFi, Harris, Lockyer, Hutchins, etc.....
That doesn't bode well for a Pro-2A ballot measure.

Can we sue them for violating our Constitutional rights?

wildhawker
02-12-2011, 3:32 PM
We do sue "them" for violating our Constitutional rights.

IrishPirate
02-12-2011, 3:40 PM
OP, there's a lawsuit pending for everything you just mentioned. Everyone says our fight for gun rights is "Chess, not Checkers". In chess you can't just leap over the castle wall, knock out the knight and bishop when you land, kill the king and take the queen to bed.....you have to kill a few pawns first. If it were checkers though, we culd back track and jump all their pieces at once, then crown Gura our king on the steps of the Brady Campaign headquarters. If only, if only.......

Gray Peterson
02-12-2011, 3:45 PM
Can we sue them for violating our Constitutional rights?

Who's them?

Bhobbs
02-12-2011, 4:08 PM
Who's them?

Anyone who works towards restricting the 2nd amendment.

Bhobbs
02-12-2011, 4:13 PM
We do sue "them" for violating our Constitutional rights.

I mean the authors of bills or groups that try to restrict the 2A. They will just keep passing bills because it doesn't effect them individually.

nicki
02-12-2011, 4:31 PM
Both of those bills will probably be killed in upcoming lawsuits, but use of time/money.

If we are to do any type of proposition, I would propose a series of propositions designed to shut down all BS laws in the first place.

Some example:

1. 10 year sunset on all laws, including ones currently on the books. If something requires more than 10 years, then a 2/3rds vote along with the voter approval. Difficult, but not impossible.

2. Requirement that all laws be subject to review and that that if a individual claims the law violates their rights that the review will be at least intermediate scrutiny, preferably strict. Definitely not "rational basis".

Nicki

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 5:51 PM
We do sue "them" for violating our Constitutional rights.
As my wife says....

yes.... Yes.... YES!!!!!!!!!!!

chris
02-12-2011, 6:07 PM
As my wife says....

yes.... Yes.... YES!!!!!!!!!!!

no comment. LOL.

CCWFacts
02-12-2011, 6:09 PM
People bring up the idea of pro-RKBA ballot props here all the time. It's a terrible idea.

Gandalf will explain why:

http://blackliberal.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/you-shall-not-pass.jpg

The Black Knight also has an opinion:

http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_michael/blackknight.jpg

Porterhouse
02-12-2011, 6:23 PM
Ballot measures aren't going to change a thing in California. We, as gun owners, are the small percentage of people that are not brainwashed by the media.

Our battles are best saved for the courts.
It's remarkable that someone would make such an ignorant statement. First, just how do you define "gun owners?" What percentage of people or households in California own one or more guns? I suspect the number is quite high.

Do you really believe that everyone who supports any form of gun control has been necessarily been "brainwashed by the media?" You honestly think none of them are able to think for themselves? Really?

As someone else said pour enough resources on a problem and anything is possible. Proposition 8 is a prime example (no matter how you feel about it.) Almost all the pundits gave it no chance. Yet enough people stood up, got involved and opened their checkbooks

One of the reason California has the gun laws is does is because of years of apathy. It's not to see CG and a strengthened CRPA. I appreciate the OP because it as least makes me think about things.

pointedstick
02-12-2011, 6:44 PM
It's remarkable that someone would make such an ignorant statement. First, just how do you define "gun owners?" What percentage of people or households in California own one or more guns? I suspect the number is quite high.

In 2001, the firearm ownership rate in California was measured to be 21% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html).

dantodd
02-12-2011, 7:24 PM
In 2001, the firearm ownership rate in California was measured to be 21% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html).

It's remarkable that someone could make such an ignorant post based on nothing more than facts and research.

Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.

Librarian
02-12-2011, 7:48 PM
In 2001, the firearm ownership rate in California was measured to be 21% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html).

That Just Don't Look Right.

I won't dispute that that is the result from calling folks in CA, but I believe there are additional factors that lead to an undercount of California gun owners when measured by telephone surveys.

An example of such a factor: Would you initiate a discussion about guns with a co-worker? Anecdotally, a few people at Calguns answer this "yes" and a larger number answer "no". Discussion of guns in California work places has been used to make claims of a 'hostile work environment'.

The General Social Survey gives a number around 35% as a national average. Even Hemenway (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full), a noted anti-gun researcher, gets 26% for his national average. 21% appears to be an outlier.

dantodd
02-13-2011, 6:29 AM
That Just Don't Look Right.

...

The General Social Survey gives a number around 35% as a national average. Even Hemenway (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full), a noted anti-gun researcher, gets 26% for his national average. 21% appears to be an outlier.

The study linked reported 38% (iirc) nationwide so it seems in line with the General Social Survey. I was a little surprised to see AK at less than 60% though.

Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.