PDA

View Full Version : constitutional carry question


Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 9:34 AM
what would it take to get constitutional carry in California?

bwiese
06-07-2011, 9:39 AM
Sorry, ain't gonna happen - that's a political thing.

We can get rational concealed carry in CA - i.e, spreading what happened in Sacramento to throughout the state.

morrcarr67
06-07-2011, 9:53 AM
what would it take to get constitutional carry in California?

A whole new group of people in Sacramento.

But to do that we would need all the people in CA that voted for this bunch to leave and a whole new group of people to move in.

So, what I'm trying to say is it has as much a chance as does a snowball in .........

cvc04
06-07-2011, 9:55 AM
Feel free to constitutionally carry anytime you want. Just be prepared for the unconstitutional consequences.

Peaceful John
06-07-2011, 9:56 AM
As unlikely as it now seems, if SCOTUS somehow determined that LOC is the constitionally protected right, but that CCW licensing is a State option (while still maintaining LOC), then it could happen.

Probably ... two weeks.

Decoligny
06-07-2011, 9:57 AM
what would it take to get constitutional carry in California?

A wildfire type virus that kills 100% of the inhabitants of California. After that the residents of Nevada, Arizona, and other more constitutionally friendly states could move in and start over.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 10:00 AM
Sorry, ain't gonna happen - that's a political thing.

We can get rational concealed carry in CA - i.e, spreading what happened in Sacramento to throughout the state.

ain't gonna happen? not with that attitude it wont
you ever hear the squeaky wheel gets the oil? or how about a closed mouth never gets fed?
like you said "it is a political thing" and if you tell your representative hey i wont vote for you if you dont do what i want then they will listen you have to remember they work for you you dont work for them
if half the people on calguns sent a letter not an e mail but a real letter to their local representative i am sure we could get the ball rolling on this but if you keep up the "ain't gonna happen" mentality then it ain't gonna happen

IrishPirate
06-07-2011, 10:01 AM
easiest way is an act of SCOTUS......:eek:

Window_Seat
06-07-2011, 10:25 AM
Anything is possible, but it takes people to keep working on it. Baby steps are necessary in this case, but OTOH, Wisconsin is on the verge of passing CC, and they are going to that from NO CCW at all.

Our Legislature has rejected every shall issue bill that has come before it, and it's not entirely impossible for our state to become one where the political makeup is swayed. We could witness our anti lawmakers have a "be careful what you wish for" moment sometime in our lifetime.

I haven't seen anything in the way of activity when it comes to re-districting, but I'm still not sure how that could affect our political party make-up.

If it's possible for this state to have a majority of (R)s, then it's possible. Until then, we'll have to depend on the Congress or USSC. But it's not impossible, and I will always pledge to never say anything is impossible when it comes to winning back the Constitutional Right.

And I know that just because one is a (D) doesn't automatically make them an anti, but we know the history of our state.

Erik.

fiddletown
06-07-2011, 10:28 AM
ain't gonna happen? not with that attitude it wont
you ever hear the squeaky wheel gets the oil? or how about a closed mouth never gets fed?...Some goals are realistic and some are not.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 10:33 AM
Some goals are realistic and some are not.

reality is what we make it my friend

fiddletown
06-07-2011, 10:40 AM
reality is what we make it my friendNot really, and those who actually accomplish things know that. In general, people get nowhere unless they first of all understand reality.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 10:54 AM
Not really, and those who actually accomplish things know that. In general, people get nowhere unless they first of all understand reality.

what is reality?
before april 12th 1961 was putting a man in space reality?
like i said reality is what you make it and those who dont understand that are not living in reality and to quote you " In general, people get nowhere unless they first of all understand reality"
this country was founded by dreamers and thinkers not people who lied down and said things like it aint gonna happen or it isnt a reality
so here is reality the representatives represent you you tell them what to do if you want something done make it a reality

stand up and be heard or dont stand up and be herded!

J.D.Allen
06-07-2011, 11:01 AM
what would it take to get constitutional carry in California?

:rofl2:

There are only three (soon to be four, possibly five or six after a while) states that have some sort of constituional carry provision. I say some sort because the conditions vary in each state that has it. (The new law taking effect in Wyoming for example only applies to residents of Wyoming, and in Arizona you still can't carry into places that serve alcohol without a CCW, and then only concealed).

Anyway point being that only a handful of states have been able to accomplish this. It has not happened in Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, New Hmapshire, nor in many other states that are far more 2A friendly, and you think we're going to get this in California? You might as well ask for FA weapons to be issued to the residents of New Jersey.

In short, what BWIESE said. It ain't gonna happen.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 11:05 AM
:rofl2:

There are only three (soon to be four, possibly five or six after a while) states that have some sort of constituional carry provision. I say some sort because the conditions vary in each state that has it. (The new law taking effect in Wyoming for example only applies to residents of Wyoming, and in Arizona you still can't carry into places that serve alcohol without a CCW, and then only concealed).

Anyway point being that only a handful of states have been able to accomplish this. It has not happened in Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, New Hmapshire, nor in many other states that are far more 2A friendly, and you think we're going to get this in California? You might as well ask for FA weapons to be issued to the residents of New Jersey.

In short, what BWIESE said. It ain't gonna happen.

andd like i said
ain't gonna happen? not with that attitude it wont

fiddletown
06-07-2011, 11:09 AM
...this country was founded by dreamers and thinkers ...They were thinkers, but they weren't dreamers. They were practical and successful men who knew what they could do and how to do it.

...stand up and be heard or dont stand up and be herded!Just a cliche.

For another one, consider Reinhold Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer":

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference. (emphasis added)

For every cliche, there's an equal and opposite cliche.

In your profile, under your occupation, you wrote, "Work sucks." Can't you find work that doesn't?

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 11:24 AM
They were thinkers, but they weren't dreamers. They were practical and successful men who knew what they could do and how to do it.

Just a cliche.

For another one, consider Reinhold Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer":

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference. (emphasis added)

For every cliche, there's an equal and opposite cliche.

In your profile, under your occupation, you wrote, "Work sucks." Can't you find work that doesn't?

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference. (emphasis added) ;)

as far as my occupation yes i can find work that doesnt suck and i have now updated it to something more appropriate
:D

fiddletown
06-07-2011, 11:34 AM
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference. (emphasis added)...You still need to know the difference between what can be changed and what can not.

berto
06-07-2011, 11:37 AM
what would it take to get constitutional carry in California?


What do you think it will take? Throw out some ideas.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 11:38 AM
You still need to know the difference between what can be changed and what can not.

we will never know if we dont try

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 11:40 AM
What do you think it will take? Throw out some ideas.

if half the people on calguns sent a letter not an e mail but a real letter to their local representative i am sure we could get the ball rolling on this

i dont know what it is going to take but i know we wont know if we dont try

Curley Red
06-07-2011, 11:47 AM
A wildfire type virus that kills 100% of the inhabitants of California. After that the residents of Nevada, Arizona, and other more constitutionally friendly states could move in and start over.

So I don't get to stay. That is nice of you, if one is bad we must all be bad. It is thinking like that which created our laws, the majority gets screwed because of the few.

ccmc
06-07-2011, 12:00 PM
What do you think it will take? Throw out some ideas.

A different legislature, different governor, different AG, etc. Someone said in another thread CA was full of anti-gun republicans and pro-gun democrats which flabbergasted me. If that were really the case (since CA is majority democrat) you all would have more 2A friendly gun laws already, and constitutional carry would be much easier to achieve. It can be done in democrat majority states - VT is a good example - but it's much more difficult. I don't think WI would be discussing this seriously if the democrats were still in power there.

berto
06-07-2011, 12:00 PM
if half the people on calguns sent a letter not an e mail but a real letter to their local representative i am sure we could get the ball rolling on this

i dont know what it is going to take but i know we wont know if we dont try

My representatives are completely anti-gun. I contact them re: every 2A issue before them. Their staffs thanks me for my input even though I disagree with the boss. Email. faxes, phone calls, and letters go to low ranking staffers or interns. They tally responses. They forward some stuff up the chain of command depending on the issue. An anti-gun legislator isn't going to push for constitutional carry. The ball is stopped and going nowhere.

You want a move for constitutional carry in the legislature? Change the makeup of the legislature. In this we're our own worst enemy as too many gun owners are unwilling to look beyond party affiliation.

bwiese
06-07-2011, 12:02 PM
Vanilla,

The problem is CA legislative composition and population skew, plus the fact that many CA gun owners actually vote other issues instead (unions, job matters, religious issues, discrimination aganst nontraditional folks, etc.)


The significant parts of the problem:


CA Republicans stink to a large portion of CA electorate due to perceived religious issues/abortion.
"Choice" continues to be one of the top 3 general CA political concerns, esp to female voters, plus
there's a ton of younger unmarried F voters added to the skew. The CA Republican *registration*
is far lower than the Dems' too: meaning they starting off on the wrong foot right off the bat - they
have to bust their butt in swing districts just to come close to breaking even.

Reapportionment, etc. may fix the above *somewhat* - i.e, make a few more CA districts more in play
for the Republicans. It doesn't mean a free ride for them, however, due to their baggage.
.
Relating to the above, many existing CA Republicans have fairly *safe* seats. That means they're fat,
dumb and happy and not too willing to "rock the boat" - at best they just vote 'No' on bad gun bills
and call it a day: getting them to carry useful, achievable, incremental pro-gun bills is far more difficult.

(For example, that "really pro-gun" guy, Tom McClintock - now a US Congressman - always talked a good
game on guns but "there wasn't there there".)

There are relatively few Doug LaMalfas (Katrina bill) and Curt Hagmans (Ab962 repeal sponsor) that are
willing to step up. In fact, CCW reform efforts were actually driven by two Dems that were "CRPA Legislators
of the Year" - Sens. Rod Wright and Lou Correa.
.
The skew of Dems in CA is to dense population centers, where there's a somewhat antigun base and the
politician is secure there, so why is he gonna risk a fight on gun rights - (unless he's a true believer, like
state Sen. Rod Wright) - if he can deal with other issues his district thinks is a priority? Dems in Central
Valley area are fewer and generally favorable to guns.
.
If there were enough CA folks to do what you suggest - i.e., that enthralled with carry, we'd actually see
more than 1-2% CCW application rates in CA counties that are already essentially shall-issue. Some of this
is due admittedly to misperception that you can't get a CCW in CA - when it's really only 6-8 counties that
have a real severe problem, while in other counties it's reasonably achievable.


In no way does this mean we do not continue to apply political pressure, but it also means we don't waste our time tilting at windmills trying to get the 90% likely unachieveable.

HowardW56
06-07-2011, 12:08 PM
Some goals are realistic and some are not.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :iagree: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ccmc
06-07-2011, 12:18 PM
You want a move for constitutional carry in the legislature? Change the makeup of the legislature. In this we're our own worst enemy as too many gun owners are unwilling to look beyond party affiliation.

That's pretty much it. Nobody ever gets everything they want. Personally I've got no problem with legal abortion, gay marriage, legal drugs, single payor healthcare, etc. But nobody gets my vote if they are anti 2A. That's my line in the sand. Fortunately most FL politicians are pro 2A, some more then others, but being overtly anti 2A in FL or anywhere in the south is pretty close to political suicide in most districts. If CA voters that are pro 2A have other issues that are more important, well like I said, nobody gets everything they want. You really do have to pick and choose which issues and causes you're not willing to compromise on even if that means you have to vote in people that stand for things you don't like. And that's my definition of political reality.

jwkincal
06-07-2011, 12:34 PM
Everyone is so friggin' ABSOLUTE.

The question isn't "can it be done?" or "is it impossible?"

The question is "when is it possible?"

Most of the old folks on this forum (if you remember the Berlin Wall I'm talking about you) lived during a time when California had LOC; before the dark times... before the Empire. Many of those folks are only about halfway through their lives (I hope). In that half of their lives they have witnessed (or ignored) the insipid march of oppression which has brought us to where we are today. In the half that remains, it is possible that they may yet have the thrill of seeing that pendulum swing back the other way.

Given the national political climate surrounding the 2nd Amendment and the course of recent (and probably upcoming) judicial rulings, there may come a time that the realm of Califia is trod upon once again by the feet of free men. We may live to see it. I fully expect to, myself.

Now, having said that... I expect that the timeframe in question won't be to the OP's liking. And I'm sure that the naysayers here would contend that "fifteen years from now doesn't count" or that some folks will complain that they'll probably be pusing daisies by then. Whatever. You can't answer a question like the OP's by saying "not possible" unless you qualify same without hyperbole or dramatic license.

Anyway, I would answer OP by saying that the shortest route to that would be a series of subsequent rulings by SCOTUS which broaden McDonald to say that incorporation is subject to a high level of scrutiny; in which case the C in CC would be the US and not Cali's... and I would further qualify said remark by indicating that cases intended to induce such rulings are in fact enroute to that chamber as we speak.

Now, what happens in those cases is never certain, so YMMV.

ilkhan
06-07-2011, 12:41 PM
what would it take to get constitutional carry in California?
LA and SF getting nuked.

Or doing it at the federal level.

Anchors
06-07-2011, 12:57 PM
Feel free to constitutionally carry anytime you want. Just be prepared for the unconstitutional consequences.

Best post in the thread haha.
I've never seen it put that way.

A wildfire type virus that kills 100% of the inhabitants of California. After that the residents of Nevada, Arizona, and other more constitutionally friendly states could move in and start over.

I've always wanted a beach at the Arizona border, just without the drum circle/shower-less beach crowd.

easiest way is an act of SCOTUS......:eek:

See: "Only way" for reference.
If we got national constitutional carry, then we could obviously get it. But short of that, I don't see California budging or at least not for several years.

Ctwo
06-07-2011, 1:10 PM
you ever hear the squeaky wheel gets the oil?

Yeah, and it is the first one to get replaced...


Perhaps if our southern drug lords invaded sac and there were rampant beheadings...

Quser.619
06-07-2011, 1:11 PM
This will come only via the courts. No sitting member of the legislature would survive an opposition's campaign that hinged on them saying my opponent made it easier for just anyone to carry a loaded gun in the open.

We understand the facts, but elections rarely run on just the facts, they run on perception.

If you want LOC, donate to CalGuns, CRPA, NRA & if you're lucky you might see in in the next 2 decades.

Personally, I'd prefer to continue to make whatever solid progress we can now. The steps necessary to get us shall issue, over-turning the roster, magazine capacity, GFSZ's, restoring the 4th by over-turning E checks, are more important & necessary to get us the right to carry however we choose.

Without those steps, loaded carry will do us no good when we are limited as to where & what we can carry.

nicki
06-07-2011, 1:44 PM
Better chance of winning a million dollars in the California Lottery, that being said, it is not impossible, but highly unlikely.

The SCOTUS will have a carry case within next two years. My gut feeling is they will rule LOC is protected by the 2nd amendment and that while Concealed Carry is a privilege, it is one subject to equal protection and that if the standards are arbitrary, they are unconstitutional.

What could happen is a Feeral Judge could demand that the state justify the CCW law using a "strict scrutiny standard" and requiring the state to justify every part of the CCW process.

If the state refused to comply with the court, the court could put a injunction on the whole or parts of the CCW law which could make California efectively a no permit required state.

This happened for a short period of time in Ohio when the state's concealed weapons ban was challenged in state court. The plantiff was winning all the way up to the Ohio Supreme court when the court pulled a fast one and said that the Concealed Carry ban was constitutional because Feely had the right to openly carry a loaded firearm.

What is different here in California is handguns sales are registered, we have the HSC, we have a waiting period, we have laws against criminals owning and carrying guns.

In this state, someone could get a CCW permit with only a 4 hour class with no live fire requirement depending on what county they are in.

If a Federal judge said okay, CCW permits should be treated like driver's licenses. all CCW permits will have a max 4 hour training course, limit live fire to one semi, one revolver for qualification, no restrictions on commercial available arms, allow people to apply at any LEO agency since it is a "State license", reduce fees and expand license terms to say 5 years just like driver's licenses and that when a person applies they get a "Temporary CCW Permit" immediately after taking their training course, things could get interesting.

Nicki

Meplat
06-07-2011, 2:11 PM
what would it take to get constitutional carry in California?


A SCOTUS ruling (not likely in our lifetime)......................................... ...................................

OR

Return California to it's original federally patterned bicameral legislature, that had one senate seat fore each county and gerrymandered one man one vote assembly districts. Less likely than the SCOTUS route.

Mike

wildhawker
06-07-2011, 2:21 PM
Historical note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders

Only representatives from the US Senate may have dis-proportionate numbers of constituents.

On topic: SCOTUS is almost certainly never going to find a 2A right to bear in such a manner as "Constitutional Carry" has been defined to be in recent years.

-Brandon


A SCOTUS ruling (not likely in our lifetime)

OR


Return California to it's original federally patterned bicameral legislature, that had one senate seat fore each county and gerrymandered one man one vote assembly districts.

Less likely than the SCOTUS route.

Mike

Maestro Pistolero
06-07-2011, 2:28 PM
It could happen pretty quickly through the SCOTUS. LOC is entirely consistent with the court's dicta in Heller and McDonald, and a more direct route than CCW licensing. If only one form of carry were to survive in the supreme court, It would likely be LOC.

Constitutional carry implies no license necessary, a politically impossibility at the state level. But it is entirely possible that LOC will be the federal baseline of 'bear' with more regulation being permissible where concealed carry is concerned. In the scenario of LOC protection from the court, a state the also licenses CCW may have more latitude to regulate where when and how we may carry.

In other words, if both forms if carry are available to non-prohibited persons, a law that limits LOC in say, parks or banks may survive if CCW were permitted.

Meplat
06-07-2011, 2:42 PM
Historical note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders

Only representatives from the US Senate may have dis-proportionate numbers of constituents.

On topic: SCOTUS is almost certainly never going to find a 2A right to bear in such a manner as "Constitutional Carry" has been defined to be in recent years.

-Brandon

I thought that was a Ca thing, I didn't know it was federal. What is the point of a Bicameral legislature then?

Meplat
06-07-2011, 2:50 PM
I thought that was a Ca thing, I didn't know it was federal. What is the point of a Bicameral legislature then?

Brandon is correct: Reynolds v. Sims, SCOTUS, 1964. Us old farts remember that was when the slide into the outhouse basement started!:mad:

Librarian
06-07-2011, 3:00 PM
I thought that was a Ca thing, I didn't know it was federal. What is the point of a Bicameral legislature then?

As I understand the original intent, it's patterned a little bit after the British House of Lords/House of Commons.

The US Senate, with 6-year terms, was originally selected by the legislatures of the states, and later (1913, 17th Amendment) changed to popular, statewide election. The theory was that with the longer term, they would be insulated from campaigning, and would have more time to devote to, well, whatever Senators do. They're expected to be older (30 vs 25 for H of R), more mature, more deliberate. (In 1850, life expectancy in the US was less than 40 years.)

For California: Patronage and power? A career-ladder step for termed-out Assembly members? That's where we are today. In 1849, I suspect the convention thought copying the Federal model was a Good Idea.

ELBong
06-07-2011, 3:22 PM
I hear there's this dude on an Open Cary blog with a secret lawyer who's going to make Constitutional Cary happen for all of us for sum total of $5000 because he's right and everyone on Calguns are robot stooges.

bohoki
06-07-2011, 3:28 PM
an act of congress

jwkincal
06-07-2011, 3:37 PM
I occurs to me that there is a nearly instant gratification approach.

If anyone here has a couple billion dollars that isn't doing anything at the moment...

CA's constitution can be amended by POPULAR VOTE (I'm told it was written this way to prevent the Railroad companies from becoming too powerful).

So if you can afford to buy a bunch of media, you can get an initiative on the next ballot and run a bigger blitz than the bad guys... presto! Constitutional Carry!

So... anyone? Bueller?

HowardW56
06-07-2011, 3:38 PM
I hear there's this dude on an Open Cary blog with a secret lawyer who's going to make Constitutional Cary happen for all of us for sum total of $5000 because he's right and everyone on Calguns are robot stooges.



:eek: :rofl2: :sleeping:

Librarian
06-07-2011, 4:00 PM
I occurs to me that there is a nearly instant gratification approach.

If anyone here has a couple billion dollars that isn't doing anything at the moment...

CA's constitution can be amended by POPULAR VOTE (I'm told it was written this way to prevent the Railroad companies from becoming too powerful).

So if you can afford to buy a bunch of media, you can get an initiative on the next ballot and run a bigger blitz than the bad guys... presto! Constitutional Carry!

So... anyone? Bueller?

That would require that the media would actually sell access. Maybe this time around LATimes is hurting enough that they'd actually sell ad space. Don't know about TV stations; do know that unless one found a tag-line that didn't mention guns, and then ground the ads into the forebrains of 20 million people (seems like 30 seconds, 4 times/hour, 7 am to midnight for about 3 months before the election ought to do that.)

A large-ish contribution to PBS might be entertaining ...

Anchors
06-07-2011, 4:06 PM
I occurs to me that there is a nearly instant gratification approach.

If anyone here has a couple billion dollars that isn't doing anything at the moment...

CA's constitution can be amended by POPULAR VOTE (I'm told it was written this way to prevent the Railroad companies from becoming too powerful).

So if you can afford to buy a bunch of media, you can get an initiative on the next ballot and run a bigger blitz than the bad guys... presto! Constitutional Carry!

So... anyone? Bueller?

Hmm...

That would require that the media would actually sell access. Maybe this time around LATimes is hurting enough that they'd actually sell ad space. Don't know about TV stations; do know that unless one found a tag-line that didn't mention guns, and then ground the ads into the forebrains of 20 million people (seems like 30 seconds, 4 times/hour, 7 am to midnight for about 3 months before the election ought to do that.)

A large-ish contribution to PBS might be entertaining ...

Obama's 700 million dollar campaign (by far the most expensive in history) got middle aged people who had never even voted to register and vote for him.

With enough money and advertising, I am convinced you can do pretty much anything.

A few billion seems about right for just California carry since it is so rapidly anti-gun. Make every other commercial on TV about carrying and protecting yourself. Throw in some emotional propaganda with rape/murder victims (hey, the opposition does it all the time).

Anything goes in political advertising these days...or it seems that way to a common guy like me anyway.

Meplat
06-07-2011, 4:23 PM
Anything goes in political advertising these days...or it seems that way to a common guy like me anyway.

How about granny whips a 1911 out of her wheel chair and double taps the evil republican that is pushing her off the cliff?:43:

hoffmang
06-07-2011, 4:25 PM
an act of congress

The quickest path to Constitutional Carry in California is through the Federal House, Senate, and President via the 14th Amendment.

We can't even get a shall issue concealed carry bill out of committee in California. If you can't get something small like that, you can't just go straight to the entire thing.

-Gene

jwkincal
06-07-2011, 5:01 PM
That would require that the media would actually sell access. Maybe this time around LATimes is hurting enough that they'd actually sell ad space. Don't know about TV stations; do know that unless one found a tag-line that didn't mention guns, and then ground the ads into the forebrains of 20 million people (seems like 30 seconds, 4 times/hour, 7 am to midnight for about 3 months before the election ought to do that.)

A large-ish contribution to PBS might be entertaining ...

Oh, the TV stations will sell you air, I promise. You walk in there with a big fat wallet and their "principles" will evaporate like a pint of Everclear busted on an Arizona sidewalk on an August afternoon. And with that kind of money, you could hire some really slick PR guys whom would package your message so compellingly that the Legislature themselves would be rushing to pass it first so that they could take credit for it.

Money talks. Especially here in tinseltown. You think that the Gubernator got elected for his prose? If we had the money and resources of the bad guys in this fight, we wouldn't need the courts. It's lucky for us that sometimes the courts do honor a code of ethics (emphasis on sometimes) or we'd be merging this part of the forum with the SHTF portion of Outdoors, Camping and Survival...

But I like our chances in SCOTUS, like Gene says... we just have to be patient until the second Tuesday of the next two weeks in a Month of Sundays gets here.

VAReact
06-07-2011, 5:38 PM
How about granny whips a 1911 out of her wheel chair and double taps the evil republican that is pushing her off the cliff?:43:

:rofl2: That made my day...

fiddletown
06-07-2011, 7:15 PM
...It can be done in democrat majority states - VT is a good example - but it's much more difficult....Vermont has it because of a Vermont Supreme Court case years ago interpreting the RKBA provision in the Vermont State Constitution. The make up of the Vermont legislature had nothing to do with it.

fiddletown
06-07-2011, 7:27 PM
if half the people on calguns sent a letter not an e mail but a real letter to their local representative i am sure we could get the ball rolling on this ...There are about 75,000 people registered here, and not all of them are California residents, some may not be registered to vote and some may not even be of voting age. But assuming they are, half would be 37,500 letters.

About 17,000,000 people are registered to vote in California. How much influence will 0.2% of the electorate have?

Got any other ideas?

jwkincal
06-07-2011, 7:34 PM
There are about 75,000 people registered here, and not all of them are California residents, some may not be registered to vote and some may not even be of voting age. But assuming they are, half would be 37,500 letters.

About 17,000,000 people are registered to vote in California. How much influence will 0.2% of the electorate have?

Got any other ideas?

In the olden daze in the PR world, 1 actual snail mail letter was generally equated to the opinion of 1,000 people...

Nowadays? With CA politics? Who knows.

37,000 pieces of real actual mail in each Legislator's mailbox would be a very strong message nevertheless.

hoffmang
06-07-2011, 7:41 PM
37,000 pieces of real actual mail in each Legislator's mailbox would be a very strong message nevertheless.

That wasn't enough to keep AB-962 from passing.

-Gene

jwkincal
06-07-2011, 8:11 PM
That wasn't enough to keep AB-962 from passing.

-Gene

If you guys really got that much paper into the Capitol mailboxes, I am impressed (and depressed).

Right now it seems that the ban contingent in Sacramento is reading the writing on the wall on the National front and is trying to throw as much crap on the books as they can before the other shoe drops in the hope of having to give up less ground. This suggests that they'll stonewall even harder this year.

Maybe a meteor will hit the Capitol during a joint session of the Legislature...

fiddletown
06-07-2011, 8:15 PM
And do you really think you could get half of CalGuns to send letters? If you look at the member list here, there are bunches of people registered who have never posted. There are also many people registered who haven't visited the board in years.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 10:28 PM
And do you really think you could get half of CalGuns to send letters? If you look at the member list here, there are bunches of people registered who have never posted. There are also many people registered who haven't visited the board in years.

Guess you are right and we all should just give up and turn in out guns :rolleyes:






You can quit if you want me I will keep up the good fight but to answer your question no I don't think I or anyone could get 1/2 of calguns to stand up for their rights because it seams most californians just like to b*tch about things but then do nothing to change it at all it is sad really

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 10:32 PM
There are about 75,000 people registered here, and not all of them are California residents, some may not be registered to vote and some may not even be of voting age. But assuming they are, half would be 37,500 letters.

About 17,000,000 people are registered to vote in California. How much influence will 0.2% of the electorate have?

Got any other ideas?

0.2% is still more than 0% no matter what way you slice it

But since you ask for other ideas here is a few you can e mail them you can go to their offices you could do anything because anything is better than nothing

bwiese
06-07-2011, 10:36 PM
If you guys really got that much paper into the Capitol mailboxes, I am impressed (and depressed).

I think it was quite a bit more even. A TON of effort by NRA, CRPA and Calgunners was exerted. LOTS of paper was generated to not only get activism on the ground kicked into gear, but to turn that into a stack of letters our NRA and CRPA guys in Sacto could confront opposition with.

I suspect even if it was 10X that the antis would have been glad to have p*ssed more people off.

bwiese
06-07-2011, 10:37 PM
0.2% is still more than 0% no matter what way you slice it

But since you ask for other ideas here is a few you can e mail them you can go to their offices you could do anything because anything is better than nothing

You must be new to the fight, sonny.

We're doing *effective* things. I'd rather win in courts and on a national basis to bounce freedoms back into CA, than hurl and flail myself at legislators

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 10:47 PM
You must be new to the fight, sonny.

We're doing *effective* things. I'd rather win in courts and on a national basis to bounce freedoms back into CA, than hurl and flail myself at legislators

Not new to the fight and I don't appreciate being called "sonny" ;) I am just sick of the "aint gonna happen" mentality also I am sick of all the people who want to b*tch about things but not do anything about it

hoffmang
06-07-2011, 10:58 PM
Not new to the fight and I don't appreciate being called "sonny" ;) I am just sick of the "aint gonna happen" mentality also I am sick of all the people who want to b*tch about things but not do anything about it

I think you should find people who aren't doing something to ***** at in the first place.

-Gene

bwiese
06-07-2011, 10:58 PM
Not new to the fight and I don't appreciate being called "sonny" ;) I am just sick of the "aint gonna happen" mentality also I am sick of all the people who want to b*tch about things but not do anything about it

Some of us are tired of hearing people thinking the impossible is worth wasting time on instead of working the 'right way'.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-07-2011, 11:32 PM
Some of us are tired of hearing people thinking the impossible is worth wasting time on instead of working the 'right way'.

Keep telling yourself it is impossible and I will be happy to prove you wrong

hoffmang
06-07-2011, 11:43 PM
Keep telling yourself it is impossible and I will be happy to prove you wrong

LOL!

Can I venture to bet that you have no particular expertise in Math or Political Science?

-Gene

fiddletown
06-08-2011, 5:26 AM
Guess you are right and we all should just give up and turn in out guns ...And who said that's the choice: push for constitutional carry or give up. Phooey! The choice is: wasting time, energy and resources pursuing an unreachable goal, on one hand; or devoting time, energy and resources to activities that can actually make a difference.

Keep telling yourself it is impossible and I will be happy to prove you wrong And exactly how do you plan to do that?

steamerjames
06-08-2011, 7:43 AM
Ab962 is the reason i decied that there was no future for gun owners in CA.I'm glad and suprized it was overturned, but my reason for leaving the state still stands.If they want to pass such an obiousy "bad" bill just to punish us, we have no reason to live here and take punishment.Just "Vote with your feet".They might change their minds when "the best and the smartest" leave the state.I doubt they would notice "the brain drain", but even the communists noticed and built the berlin wall.They cannot stop us from leaving, so i shall.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-08-2011, 7:57 AM
And exactly how do you plan to do that?

i am sorry but i dont feed the trolls

Vanilla Gorilla
06-08-2011, 7:59 AM
LOL!

Can I venture to bet that you have no particular expertise in Math or Political Science?

-Gene

wow a personal atack good job sir

fiddletown
06-08-2011, 8:01 AM
And exactly how do you plan to do that?i am sorry but i dont feed the trollsJust as I thought. You don't have a clue.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-08-2011, 8:02 AM
Ab962 is the reason i decied that there was no future for gun owners in CA.I'm glad and suprized it was overturned, but my reason for leaving the state still stands.If they want to pass such an obiousy "bad" bill just to punish us, we have no reason to live here and take punishment.Just "Vote with your feet".They might change their minds when "the best and the smartest" leave the state.I doubt they would notice "the brain drain", but even the communists noticed and built the berlin wall.They cannot stop us from leaving, so i shall.

I have been debating on leaving myself it seems like the majority of the people here have a beaten mentality (this thread speaks volumes about that) I also find it sad that we are closer to legalizing marijuana than we are to regaining ore 2nd amendment right

Vanilla Gorilla
06-08-2011, 9:10 AM
Just as I thought. You don't have a clue.

:troll:

fiddletown
06-08-2011, 9:21 AM
:troll:

Okay, someone who disagrees with you and challenges your myopic views, ill conceived opinions and spouting of cliches is a troll. Surely you should be able to better than that.

ccmc
06-08-2011, 10:12 AM
Vermont has it because of a Vermont Supreme Court case years ago interpreting the RKBA provision in the Vermont State Constitution. The make up of the Vermont legislature had nothing to do with it.

Tough break then since RKBA isn't in the CA State Constitution. BTW what was the makeup of the VT legislature when the VTSC ruled that way?

fiddletown
06-08-2011, 10:44 AM
...what was the makeup of the VT legislature when the VTSC ruled that way? Beats me. It was quite a while ago.

ccmc
06-08-2011, 11:33 AM
Beats me. It was quite a while ago.

It was indeed. 1903 to be exact.

Vanilla Gorilla
06-08-2011, 11:38 AM
Okay, someone who disagrees with you and challenges your myopic views, ill conceived opinions and spouting of cliches is a troll. Surely you should be able to better than that.

:troll::troll: :D

Librarian
06-08-2011, 11:59 AM
This has gone as far as it can go.