PDA

View Full Version : I wish the pro gun politicians in California had this much tenacity.


The Shadow
03-30-2011, 7:21 AM
Assembly Bill 144 will be heard by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, April 12 at 9 a.m. in room 126 on the first floor of the capitol.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6501

When a pro gun bill fails to get through committee, why don't pro gun politicians keep introducing it until it passes ? Let it continue to gain momentum and continue adding example after example of the good things right to carry has done for a state. It seems simple enough. Instead, our pro gun politicians let the antis walk all over them without a fight. I appreciate what CGF is doing, but I'm all for using every avenue available to finally bring shall issue and LOC back to California.

Don29palms
03-30-2011, 7:36 AM
Let me make sure I understand this correctly. If AB 144 passes then the only way to carry legally would be concealed? Shall issue or Constitutional carry possibly?

Gray Peterson
03-30-2011, 7:49 AM
Let me make sure I understand this correctly. If AB 144 passes then the only way to carry legally would be concealed? Shall issue or Constitutional carry possibly?

At this current time, most federal judges are ruling that even with no carry possibility at all, banning carry is perfectly OK. Relief won't happen until 9A or SCOTUS fixes the issue.

The Shadow
03-30-2011, 7:57 AM
At this current time, most federal judges are ruling that even with no carry possibility at all, banning carry is perfectly OK. Relief won't happen until 9A or SCOTUS fixes the issue.

Except for the most recent San Diego ruling, Peruta I believe it was called, when has any other federal judge ruled against any serious and well thought out argument in favor of RKBA ?

Don29palms
03-30-2011, 7:59 AM
Isn't banning all carry options unconstitutional or am I missing something?

jonyg
03-30-2011, 8:06 AM
Isn't banning all carry options unconstitutional or am I missing something?

It's very unconstitutional....the question is how long it will take until some judge is willing to step up and do their job? We're in California, and I wouldn't put it past certain judges to turn a blind eye...

The Shadow
03-30-2011, 8:23 AM
It's very unconstitutional....the question is how long it will take until some judge is willing to step up and do their job? We're in California, and I wouldn't put it past certain judges to turn a blind eye...

But it would be so much easier if the politicians, that claim they are pro second amendment, were actually pro second amendment.

bulgron
03-30-2011, 10:20 AM
When a pro gun bill fails to get through committee, why don't pro gun politicians keep introducing it until it passes ?

There are pro-gun politicians in California?

The Shadow
03-30-2011, 10:25 AM
There are pro-gun politicians in California?

They claim to be. And some even vote like they are. Go figure.

Librarian
03-30-2011, 11:29 AM
When a pro gun bill fails to get through committee, why don't pro gun politicians keep introducing it until it passes ? Let it continue to gain momentum and continue adding example after example of the good things right to carry has done for a state. It seems simple enough. Instead, our pro gun politicians let the antis walk all over them without a fight. I appreciate what CGF is doing, but I'm all for using every avenue available to finally bring shall issue and LOC back to California.

I believe I understand the following correctly: The same bill cannot be introduced more often than once every 2-year session. Joint Rules (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/rules/joint_rules.html): Identical Drafting Requests

34.5. Whenever it comes to the attention of the Legislative Counsel
that a member has requested the drafting of a bill that will be substantially
identical to one already introduced, the Legislative Counsel shall inform the
member of that fact.


A bill introduced to do 'X' last February may fail this coming June; it cannot be re-introduced in 2012, but must wait for 2013, the beginning of the next 2-year session.

So, Assemblyman Knight introduced a 'shall issue' bill, AB 357, in 2009. It failed passage; by rule, it could not come back as a new bill in 2010. Someone could have introduced a bill with that content this year, when non-budget bills were allowed, or may yet amend an existing bill with that content this month or in April. But if that bill were to fail passage, the topic is closed until next session.

It's a once every two years thing; before Heller and McDonald, I'd guess the legislators, already marginalized by numbers, felt it was more important to 'play defense'.

yellowfin
03-30-2011, 11:33 AM
Of course the other side conveniently ignores the rules when it suits them.

Wherryj
03-30-2011, 12:39 PM
Assembly Bill 144 will be heard by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, April 12 at 9 a.m. in room 126 on the first floor of the capitol.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6501

When a pro gun bill fails to get through committee, why don't pro gun politicians keep introducing it until it passes ? Let it continue to gain momentum and continue adding example after example of the good things right to carry has done for a state. It seems simple enough. Instead, our pro gun politicians let the antis walk all over them without a fight. I appreciate what CGF is doing, but I'm all for using every avenue available to finally bring shall issue and LOC back to California.

I think that you are forgetting the balance of pro- and anti-gun forces. When a pro-2A bill fails to pass, the pro-2A politicians are waiting for the other 90% in the state to "see the light". When an anti-2A politician fails to pass a bill, they are waiting for the 10% to not show up/miss a vote.

trevilli
03-30-2011, 1:36 PM
Except for the most recent San Diego ruling, Peruta I believe it was called, when has any other federal judge ruled against any serious and well thought out argument in favor of RKBA ?
They haven't of course! Whenever our side loses, it's simply because the case wasn't well thought out! Or that it wasn't 'serious'. OK, enough sarcasm from me:D Until Heller and McDonald there wasn't even a real basis to challenge laws like the Federal AW ban for example. The judges (including those at the federal level) held that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, granted to the militia. Furthermore, it did not explicitly apply at the state level.

Even with those landmark decisions however, the Federal judge in Peruta said that San Diego's restrictions on CCW didn't violate the 2nd Amendment. So, with these two decisions, it's all new territory. I know that you would like to think it's slam-dunk, we just need 'serious' and 'well thought out' arguments, but I don't think that's the way the court system works. So much depends on Nordyke because hopefully, there will be guidance given to lower courts on how what kind of scrutiny to use when a judge has to determine if a specific law violates the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

nicki
03-30-2011, 3:34 PM
The attornies on the other side of all the CCW cases are arguing that "Open Carry" meets our RKBA, and that is the excuse Judge Gonzalez used to avoid giving Ed Peruta a win in San Diego.

Our side made the mistake based on her prior written comments that she got it, we got blindsided. That won't happen again.

Even if this bill passes the Senate and the Assembly, Gov Brown still has to sign it.

Gov Brown could easily take the position that he will refuse to sign any bill restricting 2nd amendment rights until the courts give us guidance as to what is and what isn't constitutional.

Perhaps the "Open Carry" people need to pool their resources and file a "Federal Lawsuit" challenging the "Mulford Act" and the "School Zone" issue as a violation of their second amendment rights.

Nicki

trevilli
03-30-2011, 3:49 PM
The attornies on the other side of all the CCW cases are arguing that "Open Carry" meets our RKBA, and that is the excuse Judge Gonzalez used to avoid giving Ed Peruta a win in San Diego.

Our side made the mistake based on her prior written comments that she got it, we got blindsided. That won't happen again.

Even if this bill passes the Senate and the Assembly, Gov Brown still has to sign it.

Gov Brown could easily take the position that he will refuse to sign any bill restricting 2nd amendment rights until the courts give us guidance as to what is and what isn't constitutional.

Two things: First of all, I think it's wrong to call the reasoning a judge used in making her or his decision, 'an excuse', even if you disagree with the ruling. If we truly believe that the judges in our country have no more respect for the law than to rule however they want, and then try to find 'an excuse' to justify it, the system is gone. I don't think it is, and many people here at calguns must not either, because they are continuing to file lawsuits.

Second, I'm a little fuzzy on California law, I haven't lived here very long, but if the Governor refuses to sign a bill, is that essentially a veto? I believe on the federal level, if the President refuses to sign a bill, it still becomes a law, it just takes longer. I'm thinking 90 days? I could be wrong.

Librarian
03-30-2011, 4:09 PM
Second, I'm a little fuzzy on California law, I haven't lived here very long, but if the Governor refuses to sign a bill, is that essentially a veto? I believe on the federal level, if the President refuses to sign a bill, it still becomes a law, it just takes longer. I'm thinking 90 days? I could be wrong.

Basic info on CA laws and process at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

Briefly Governor
If both houses approve a bill, it goes to the Governor. The Governor has three choices: sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without his or her signature, or veto it. A governor's veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both houses. Most enacted bills go into effect on the first day of January of the next year. Urgency bills, and certain other measures, take effect immediately after they are enacted into law.

trevilli
03-30-2011, 4:38 PM
Thank you Librarian! So even if Governor Brown refuses to sign, it will still become law. So if he really wants to help, he would need to do more than refuse to sign, he would need to veto it. I think it's a very interesting question, because it would add fuel to the debate over the Governor's support of RKBA. My thought is that he might refuse to sign, citing his disagreement with the concept, but I don't think he would go so far as to veto it.

funurdiesel
03-30-2011, 8:45 PM
So, Assemblyman Knight introduced a 'shall issue' bill, AB 357, in 2009. It failed passage; by rule, it could not come back as a new bill in 2010. Someone could have introduced a bill with that content this year, when non-budget bills were allowed, or may yet amend an existing bill with that content this month or in April. But if that bill were to fail passage, the topic is closed until next session.


I wrote to my assemblyman and asked him to introduce a bill like AB 357 this session but I think that I just got brushed off.

Don29palms
03-30-2011, 9:25 PM
I guess what I really don't understand is the 2A says "shall not be infringed". Any sort of restriction is an infringement by definition. It doesn't say anywhere about reasonable restrictions. How did that come about and how can it be reversed?

Librarian
03-30-2011, 10:18 PM
I guess what I really don't understand is the 2A says "shall not be infringed". Any sort of restriction is an infringement by definition. It doesn't say anywhere about reasonable restrictions. How did that come about and how can it be reversed?

It mostly came about in around 1873 when SCOTUS heard the "Slaughterhouse" cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases). VERY simply - partly because it's the topic of huge amounts of legal publication, and partly because I don't even pretend to understand it in depth - in those decisions the SC ruled that the Bill of Rights was NOT applicable to the states, so it was essentially impossible for anyone but the Feds to 'infringe' -- and so 'infringe' isn't well understood.

You really need to read the amicus briefs for Heller (http://dcguncase.com/blog/).

Don29palms
03-31-2011, 10:49 AM
It mostly came about in around 1873 when SCOTUS heard the "Slaughterhouse" cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases). VERY simply - partly because it's the topic of huge amounts of legal publication, and partly because I don't even pretend to understand it in depth - in those decisions the SC ruled that the Bill of Rights was NOT applicable to the states, so it was essentially impossible for anyone but the Feds to 'infringe' -- and so 'infringe' isn't well understood.

You really need to read the amicus briefs for Heller (http://dcguncase.com/blog/).

So if the states decide that they only want catholics living there all other religions can be banned and the press can be censored too. The states can prohibit free speech and can prohibit who a person associates with? The cops can search wherever they want whenever they want without a warrant?

I could go on but I think you get my point.

Librarian
03-31-2011, 11:57 AM
So if the states decide that they only want catholics living there all other religions can be banned and the press can be censored too. The states can prohibit free speech and can prohibit who a person associates with? The cops can search wherever they want whenever they want without a warrant?

I could go on but I think you get my point.

And you have now discovered 'selective incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)'.

Don29palms
03-31-2011, 8:22 PM
Well now that the right to keep and bear arms has been incorporated any gun control laws are an infringement and are therefore unconstitutional.

hoffmang
03-31-2011, 8:22 PM
When a pro gun bill fails to get through committee, why don't pro gun politicians keep introducing it until it passes ?

You are incorrect. They do keep bringing it up next session, but next session is a 2 year session as Librarian points out above.

-Gene

Librarian
03-31-2011, 8:52 PM
Well now that the right to keep and bear arms has been incorporated any gun control laws are an infringement and are therefore unconstitutional.

... which is the point of all this legal activity - to determine the limitations on government interest in limiting an essential right. The discussion on that is in this parallel thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=415700