PDA

View Full Version : Changing Hearts & Minds In CA


ccmc
07-12-2011, 6:58 AM
The threads about San Francisco's new application policy and Wisconsin going shall issue after electing a new governor got me thinking about this. Since California has a ballot initiative process why not put up a proposition in the next election to make California a shall issue state that would recognize permits from all other states? Has this ever been tried? If not, why not?

I open carry
07-12-2011, 7:09 AM
How to qualify to put on the ballot.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/how-to-qualify-an-initiative.htm

NotEnufGarage
07-12-2011, 7:24 AM
Getting an initiative on the ballot is difficult and expensive.

Try winning hearts and minds one at a time. Take a friend to the range. It's usually about the easiest way to convert someone who's neutral or even anti-gun to pro-gun. Range shooting is a lot of fun. Often, you start someone with a .22, move them up to a 9MM and watch the smile get bigger. Give them a .45 and you'll see all their teeth!

Glock22Fan
07-12-2011, 8:09 AM
This comes up with newbies every few months. It sounds attractive but there's several problems. Believe it or not, by the time you take everything into account, it costs millions (yes, literally millions) to get an initiative onto the ballet. That money is far better spent on lawsuits, as we are doing at present.

And once you have the initiative on the ballet, what then? The chances are that more than 50% of the population will vote against it. We are not in the majority, unfortunately. So, all that money wasted.

We have SCOTUS on our side, the way we are going is the best, and most effective, way forward. Don't give the antis the opportunity to say "No." Just let the judges tell them they don't have a choice.

And, keep taking people to the range, as NEG says.

mdimeo
07-12-2011, 8:25 AM
We need a sticky that says, in full: "We are a minority. Please keep that in mind".

bwiese
07-12-2011, 9:22 AM
We're winning in the courts, WTF do we wanna hold a ballot drive - IN CALIFORNIA?

We already tried this with the get-the-RKBA-on-the-ballot to amend CA's constitution back in 2004/5-ish timeframe. It failed to gain traction early on...




hanging around gunshops and gun ranges and sports stores doesn't get you enough signatures.
You gotta be in supermarket parking lots, shopping malls, parks, and *everywhere*, man (as the
song goes). There are not enough volunteers for this duty that can do it for a long enough stint
and do it right.
.
gunnies don't like to sign things because "they don't wanna be on a list". (Even though there's a
fair chance I can deduce that Joe Bob at address X owns gun(s) from publicly available marketing
info.)
gunnes.

money ($2 million?) may be needed to hire professional PAID SIGNATURE GATHERERS. Substantial
extra signatures must be gathered to overcome some fraction of invalid signatures (either due to
accident - ink smears, signing on wrong line, legibility, etc. - or antis intentionally signing false info)
.
mo' money ($80Million - $100Million) needed to drive ads & outreach for the ballot drive to even
have a remote chance of success.

This is why most ballot drives are reserved for 'big' issues - like for tobacco, gambling, insurance, and
some large-scale union matters. Those guys can throw that money and more.

Failure on the ballot on the particular issue taints the issue and can even color future court results
relating to the issue.

Gray Peterson
07-12-2011, 11:23 AM
Because 100 million dollars is better spent on lawsuits and court cases, more effective, and and a federal judicial judgement cannot simply be repealed by a later ballot iniative when a state becomes even more sufficiently anti-gun.

loose_electron
07-12-2011, 11:37 AM
The litigation path is going to work better on this one, I agree.

That said, take a friend to the range, introduce people to the sport, take a politician or a journalist to the range!

Introduce as many people as you can to the sport in a friendly, non-threatening way. Positive attitude and public perception count for a lot.

Gray Peterson
07-12-2011, 12:09 PM
The litigation path is going to work better on this one, I agree.

That said, take a friend to the range, introduce people to the sport, take a politician or a journalist to the range!

Introduce as many people as you can to the sport in a friendly, non-threatening way. Positive attitude and public perception count for a lot.

This.

Librarian
07-12-2011, 12:12 PM
See also http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156804

Mesa Tactical
07-12-2011, 12:34 PM
The threads about San Francisco's new application policy and Wisconsin going shall issue after electing a new governor got me thinking about this. Since California has a ballot initiative process why not put up a proposition in the next election to make California a shall issue state that would recognize permits from all other states? Has this ever been tried? If not, why not?

Best bet is to change those hearts and minds before you put the question on the ballot. Otherwise, it's a waste of time and money.

CAL.BAR
07-12-2011, 1:01 PM
We need a sticky that says, in full: "We are a minority. Please keep that in mind".

I agree, however, it should say we are a VERY SMALL minority! And those who want to run around with guns on their hips are an even small minority yet. (even amongst gun owners)

BlackRain17
07-12-2011, 1:04 PM
Getting an initiative on the ballot is difficult and expensive.

Try winning hearts and minds one at a time. Take a friend to the range. It's usually about the easiest way to convert someone who's neutral or even anti-gun to pro-gun. Range shooting is a lot of fun. Often, you start someone with a .22, move them up to a 9MM and watch the smile get bigger. Give them a .45 and you'll see all their teeth!

Yeah sounds good. But don't do what my friend did and start a novice with a 45. My first firearm was a 45 and it wasn't that fun. I wish he started me off with a 9. His excuse, he doesn't have anything under a 45. :eek:

wash
07-12-2011, 1:22 PM
A friend of mine had never owned a handgun until recently. He wanted to learn so I brought my two pistols to the range.

He got started with a 9 mm because I don't have anything smaller, then we went to .475 Linebaugh because I don't have anything in between.

My point being that as long as you are properly prepared for what to expect, a beginner can handle a ~cannon pretty quickly. Just don't try to do that if you aren't a good teacher or if the new shooter is lacking the strength required to handle the recoil.

bwiese
07-12-2011, 1:33 PM
Yeah sounds good. But don't do what my friend did and start a novice with a 45. My first firearm was a 45 and it wasn't that fun. I wish he started me off with a 9. His excuse, he doesn't have anything under a 45. :eek:

Funny, because I find 40S&W and 357Sig to be 'snappier'/'sharper' (which couples into my wrist bones) - than the 'loong slow push' of a 45ACP.

And I can shoot 45 ACP outta my S&W 625 wheelgun all day long - it's like a popgun

nicki
07-12-2011, 1:46 PM
In the last few months I started using "Meetup.com" for my monthly shoots to promote the "Pink Pistols".

Attendence at my shoots doubled and I got alot of new shooters.

I strongly reccomend starting off with .22cal pistols/rifles. Numerous reasons, but it gets people shooting.

Most people choose to shoot 9mms primarily. A few went for the 45s. Surprisingly one of my smallest shooters did best with a 45cal 1911.

A few brave souls tried a few shots from my various 12 guages( Rem 870, Benelli M1 and Saiga 12), I had them loaded with "buckshot" since my focus is "self defense" rather than "sporting purposes".

There is alot of public misinformation, let's face it, many people get their gun information from "Hollywood" and the "News". Once people learn, touch and feel for themselves, they realize that "Hollywood" and the "News" are full of ****. That is when we open the door to change hearts and minds.

Nicki

nicki
07-12-2011, 1:50 PM
Jesus did not hang around the "Righteous", he went out and hung with the "Sinners".

Something we should consider is getting involved in other "rights" groups.

Someone who is an "activist" for some other rights probably influences many other people, so if we get them, we get access to other people they influence also.

Nicki

wash
07-12-2011, 1:57 PM
Jesus did not hang around the "Righteous", he went out and hung with the "Sinners".

Something we should consider is getting involved in other "rights" groups.

Someone who is an "activist" for some other rights probably influences many other people, so if we get them, we get access to other people they influence also.

Nicki
Nicki, I understand why you think that but I think it is a mistaken theory when you look at the battle we are fighting.

Let's talk about that some time.

stix213
07-12-2011, 2:25 PM
Regardless of the money and time required, a shall issue CCW ballot initiative would go down in flames if it were voted on. I'd guess 35% at best in favor in CA.

The only ballot initiative in our favor that I could see passing would be a vote to remove all LEO exemptions in CA firearm laws. I could see that one passing if it were positioned right in advertising (as in NOT appearing as a pro-gun bill). The end result of which would be LEO's crying to the legislature about how they have to follow CA gun laws now too, and possibly a loosening of the laws for everyone. Still not worth the time/expense to get that on the ballot though.

iskra31
07-12-2011, 2:38 PM
Regardless of the money and time required, a shall issue CCW ballot initiative would go down in flames if it were voted on. I'd guess 35% at best in favor in CA.

The only ballot initiative in our favor that I could see passing would be a vote to remove all LEO exemptions in CA firearm laws. I could see that one passing if it were positioned right in advertising (as in NOT appearing as a pro-gun bill). The end result of which would be LEO's crying to the legislature about how they have to follow CA gun laws now too, and possibly a loosening of the laws for everyone. Still not worth the time/expense to get that on the ballot though.

+1 I like that idea. :p

ccmc
07-12-2011, 4:05 PM
So the bottom line is really that the majority of California residents prefer the may issue system to a shall issue system. Are there any states that have gone from may issue to shall issue as a result of litigation rather than legislative action?

Bruce
07-12-2011, 4:15 PM
So the bottom line is really that the majority of California residents prefer the may issue system to a shall issue system.

The bottom line is that a majority of California residents don't know jack about California gun laws. If you stopped people on the street at random, I would venture to say the majority would tell you that CCW is illegal and if it isn't, it should be. For the sake of the children don'tcha know.

Librarian
07-12-2011, 4:23 PM
The bottom line is that a majority of California residents don't know jack about California gun laws. If you stopped people on the street at random, I would venture to say the majority would tell you that CCW is illegal and if it isn't, it should be. For the sake of the children don'tcha know.

That would be my speculation as well.

fiddletown
07-12-2011, 4:24 PM
So the bottom line is really that the majority of California residents prefer the may issue system to a shall issue system. ...Actually, I think if it were put to a popular vote in California, the majority would prefer no concealed weapons permits for private citizens. But in any case, "shall issue" could not win a popular vote.

...Are there any states that have gone from may issue to shall issue as a result of litigation rather than legislative action?...As you know, the favorable gun laws in Vermont are the result of a 1903 decision of the Vermont Supreme Court broadly interpreting a RKBA provision in the Vermont Constitution.

There was, I believe, a trial court decision in Wisconsin shortly after McDonald came down striking down Wisconsin's ban on concealed carry. I suspect the decision was never implemented because it was appeal. But that could have been part of the impetus for Wisconsin to have just now adopted "shall issue" legislatively.

There are also various cases pending around the country challenging restrictive CCW permit laws in the few remaining holdout States. But those cases really weren't viable before McDonald.

wash
07-12-2011, 4:25 PM
The bottom line is that most Californians are not savvy enough to see beyond the garbage our opposition would spew.

It's cultural and our gun culture has been beaten down for a long time.

So why do you want to take an $80,000,000.00 bet on that?

We are going to get Virtual Shall Issue in the state through the CCW Sunshine initiative at a cost of probably $250,000.00 or less, leaving us with another $79,750,000.00 (if we started with $80,000,000.00) to use for other gun rights issues.

The fact that ballot initiatives do not make sense does not mean that we are happy with may issue CCW.

BlackRain17
07-12-2011, 4:28 PM
The bottom line is that a majority of California residents don't know jack about California gun laws. If you stopped people on the street at random, I would venture to say the majority would tell you that CCW is illegal and if it isn't, it should be. For the sake of the children don'tcha know.

Heck before this year, I didn't know California had such a strict gun law. I just thought we couldn't buy machine guns. Now that I'm into guns, it's just ridiculous that most of the hand guns I want to buy are on the roster. Unless you are into guns, no one knows and no one really cares. Best thing to do is take your friends shooting and get them into guns as mentioned by previous poster.

Glock22Fan
07-12-2011, 5:04 PM
So the bottom line is really that the majority of California residents prefer the may issue system to a shall issue system. Are there any states that have gone from may issue to shall issue as a result of litigation rather than legislative action?

There is at least one state that has gone from no issue to shall issue through legislation.

And not states, but both Washington DC and Chicago are being dragged screaming by litigation from effectively no possession to legal possession, with more litigation elsewhere easing restaints on the 2A., so it is only a matter of time, I think.

And, from what I've seen, the majority of California residents would prefer "No Issue - No Firearms" but that ain't what they are going to get.

yellowfin
07-13-2011, 6:41 AM
The majority of California residents will have a reason to come around when gun ownership becomes useful and relevant for them in everyday life rather than an expensive, obscure, inconvenient, hazardous hobby.

fiddletown
07-13-2011, 7:38 AM
The majority of California residents will have a reason to come around when gun ownership becomes useful and relevant for them in everyday life rather than an expensive, obscure, inconvenient, hazardous hobby.That's fine and true. But how do we make gun ownership useful and relevant in the everyday lives of people who hate guns, who are afraid of them, who are afraid of people who own or want to own them, who distrust guns and people who own them or want to own them, and who believe that they are intellectually, culturally and morally superior to people who own guns or want to own guns?

We can't accomplish that sort of thing by legislation or court decisions.

What we can do is --

[1] Bring new people into guns, shooting and the shooting sports and help inculcate them in our culture of responsible gun ownership. (As a coach and instructor I have, without compensation, in the last ten years introduced hundreds of people to guns and shooting.)

[2] Be ourselves good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners.

It's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

nicki
07-13-2011, 9:59 AM
I deal with a cross section of different folks in my life.

How we expand gun rights is we have to "link" the "other rights" that people do care about to "gun rights".

Most people do believe in "Equal Rights" and when you talk to most people about "Equal Rights", they don't break things down into "strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or rational basis".

Most people have NO IDEA the significant differences of the above and the proponents of "Big Government" don't want the masses finding out.

When I found out about the differences, my reaction was this is legal BS.

We are dealing with alot of "public ignorance".

The media bases their news stories on the following:

1. Controversy
2. Conflict
3. Compassion

If it bleeds, it leads. Unfortunately this means stories involving crime with guns makes the top of the news.

At the local level we need to get to reporters.

If you are a reporter, one thing you always have to be doing is finding stories and then getting them ready within a deadline with the resources you have.

If they are pressed for time and we put things together for them, our story becomes their story.

Nicki

nicki
07-13-2011, 11:23 AM
Overall most reporters are to the political left, so their stories are going to have those "value baises".

That being said, what and how they report influences public opinion and right now their influences are going the WRONG way.

Reporters don't care about "FACTS" because "FACTS" lead to "Intellectual Stories" which appeal to people's intellect.

What reporters do care about are stories that hit peoples "Guts" because stories that are "Emotional" appeal to people's "Hearts".

We have had much discussion on taking "reporters" to the "range", etc. etc.

While I do think the above is "good", we actually can do much better, let me explain where I am going with this.

A reporter's job is to "find stories", then crank them out in a tight deadline.

There job is to find stories that a editor thinks the public will buy, what it all comes down to is ratings. News stories with high ratings means they can leverage those ratings into higher profits through advertising sales.

All media right now fights for advertising dollars and many local papers are actually in trouble financially because of it.

The reporter who not only keeps their jobs, but gets promoted is the one who puts out the stories that generate the most readership, doesn't matter if the stories are garbage.

If it bleeds, it leads. Media uses the three "Cs" in picking stories.

Controversy
Conflict
Compassion

This is why shootings usually lead the evening news. A story that can hit 2 or 3 Cs is something that will lead the news because the more C's a story has, the more interest the public will have in the story.

A smart and effective reporter will be one who develops resources so that they can quickly find stories and then get them out within deadlines.

Often their "deadlines" are very short. Being a reporter is a "high stress" job because if you don't produce, you don't have a "job".

If you are one who does produce however, you not only keep your job, but if you consistently put out stories that the public likes, you develop a following and you go from being just a "average reporter" to a "celebrity".

Once you get to "celebrity", that is where the "big money" comes in and that is what many reporters "dream of becoming".

While we are a "gun forum", we as individuals are diverse in our lives. This means we can offer the reporters more than just help on "gun stories", we would be able to offer them help on many other things as well.

The one thing reporters don't like is when someone lies or misleads them because if they are deliberately given false information, then they put out stories that will undermine their "career.

It is a matter of self survival.

Put yourself in a reporter's shoes, this is "high stress" because you have to process and get stories under deadlines and you have to trust your sources.

Your sources will either make or break your career.

How often will someone actually ask a reporter to meet with them for lunch and make a legitimate offer to become a source that can help their career?

I bet many lower level reporters don't get many of these offers and even if they do, a smart reporter will have multiple sources.

At the lunch, our person identifies who we are, what our concerns are and what our agenda is. The big thing with us is we don't want pro gun stories, what we just want are balanced stories.

Unless a reporter is rabidly anti gun, they will take up our offer. If they are, we find another reporter and help their career instead.

The purpose of the lunch is to set them up for something like a dinner event where we show up and introduce ourselves, tell a reporter what we do and what our areas of "expertise" are in addition to guns.

Let's say we have a dinner, and say 20 of us show up.

The reporter now has 20 people that they can tap into to help them with not just "Gun Stories", but other stories as well.

A smart reporter realizes that they need to have go to "human resources".

Let's say that we become a "go to source" to help a reporter, especially when they have done something stupid, like stayed out too late and now they are "hung over" and they need to get a story out fast.

Guess who gets puts and may even write the story for the reporter?
Under such a circumstance their career dodged a "bullet".

Now, if our response to them is hope you are feeling better, if you find yourself in a jam, don't worry about it, we are here to help, they will probably continue getting into jams so to speak and of course we keep bailing them out.

If we get a reporter who likes to "indulge in vices", they become "dependent' on us to save their ***es. If they burn us, we cut them off.

If we have become their right arm and they lose us, they are in deep trouble.

Yes a smart reporter will have multiple resources, but the truth is they will go to the resource that makes their life easier. Humans like the path of least resistence.

If that reporter knows that contacting our people means the first question they get is "what is your deadline" and a "straight answer" if we can or can't help them, it makes their life easier.

Reporters are in a "dog eat dog" world.

The truth is the reporters who get to the top are the ones who survived at the lower levels. The ones who rise to the top are the most resourceful ones.

Nicki

steamerjames
07-13-2011, 11:30 AM
The vast majority in this state are Demo's. These, unless they come from the south(like my wife) are arfaid of guns and hate them.I am moving back to free america i think you should give up and do the same.This state will never be free, i am sorry to say.

scarville
07-13-2011, 11:59 AM
The vast majority in this state are Demo's. These, unless they come from the south(like my wife) are arfaid of guns and hate them.I am moving back to free america i think you should give up and do the same.This state will never be free, i am sorry to say.
More and more I see staying in California like unto a battered woman sticking with an abusive husband. Gripe about injustice, corruption and oppression but as long as we each give the state taxes and obedience it doesn give runny snot about us.

In any case, given the fantastic hostility towards business the state exhibits we may all be moving soon.

wash
07-13-2011, 12:26 PM
I want to be that battered wife that cuts off Dianne Feinsteins penis and shreds it in the garbage disposal.

I'm staying.

mag360
07-13-2011, 2:50 PM
I want to be that battered wife that cuts off Dianne Feinsteins penis and shreds it in the garbage disposal.

I'm staying.

hahaha i like this. We are behind enemy lines ladies and gentlemen. Put that in your favorite anti's pipe and smoke it.

scarville
07-13-2011, 7:11 PM
I want to be that battered wife that cuts off Dianne Feinsteins penis and shreds it in the garbage disposal.
Cute. However, I think Feinstein will require decapitation, filling the mouth with garlic, a stake through the heart and burying at a crossroads.

stormy_clothing
07-13-2011, 7:20 PM
if you want to make a positive contribution proudly display your nra affiliation instead of hiding like a gay fearing hazing in the military

oaklander
07-14-2011, 4:07 PM
"Gun rights" is polling WAY UP right now. It's been this way for the last several years. I have some theories on why this is - but I will not bore you. This means that we are riding a wave of "win" - and WILL BE - for the visible future. We've been kicked around so long that it's hard for many of us to accept that we are now actually ON THE WINNING TEAM. . .

Here is EXACTLY HOW WE CONTINUE TO WIN. It is not more complicated than this:

1) We continue to do the same things we have been doing.

2) We organize the grassroots a little more tighter - just so that we can coordinate phone calls, city council meetings, etc. a tiny bit better.

--------------------------

That's about it. Our main job right now is to (1) support the litigation, and (2) work together as teams, at a grassroots level, and (3) avoid doing stupid things.

We do not need to make it more complicated.

This analysis seems OVER simple, but it would take me a small book to explain the thinking that's gone into it, and I am not even sure if it's smart for me to do that.

dantodd
07-14-2011, 4:26 PM
Ballot initiatives cost millions of dollars but when we win lawsuits we get costs paid back by those violating our civil rights.

Imagine how much money this leaves open for victory parties!

oaklander
07-14-2011, 4:32 PM
Ballot initiatives cost millions of dollars but when we win lawsuits we get costs paid back by those violating our civil rights.

Imagine how much money this leaves open for victory parties!

Correct!!!

I can't overemphasize the importance of unity. One thing that the opposition HAS actually been good at - is creating disunity among us. We are fixing that now. Moving forward, we will see less arguments about hunters vs plinkers vs collectors vs UOC vs everything vs everything else. That is VERY 2006. . .

:D

Milsurp Collector
07-14-2011, 4:44 PM
"Gun rights" is polling WAY UP right now.

In California?? I'd like to see those polls if you have a link.

Since California has a ballot initiative process why not put up a proposition in the next election to make California a shall issue state that would recognize permits from all other states?


The Big Sort http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php

People like to be around other people who share their values. People who are more conservative/value gun rights are leaving/have left California for states that are more aligned with their beliefs. People who value their gun rights don't tend to move to states like California unless they don't have a choice. Foreign immigrants to California tend to come from countries that have no tradition of widespread civilian ownership of guns. That means pro-gun rights Californians are a (shrinking) minority, as several posters have noted. No matter how many first-time shooters you take shooting, in a state of almost 37,000,000 it is like trying to empty a lake with a thimble. In the big picture it makes no difference.

Because a majority of Californians are at best neutral or at worst hostile to guns and gun owners, California gun owners can't get what they want through the democratic process of the legislature or through ballot initiatives. Only a minority of Californians would support liberalizing of gun rights, as other posters have noted. That's why the main strategy is working through the courts, to force change that is against the will of the majority of their fellow Californians.

The vast majority in this state are Demo's. These, unless they come from the south(like my wife) are arfaid of guns and hate them.I am moving back to free america i think you should give up and do the same.This state will never be free, i am sorry to say.

More and more I see staying in California like unto a battered woman sticking with an abusive husband.

These guys get it. :thumbsup:

Everyone has to look at the big picture of the pluses and minuses of living in California, not just in terms of gun rights but also the economy/employment, taxes, cost of living, traffic, crime, amount of government interference in their lives, weather, recreational opportunities, etc. and decide if living in California is still worth it. If it is, then accept that you will always be fighting against the will of the majority of the people in California regarding gun laws.

oaklander
07-14-2011, 8:52 PM
Puppies!

wash
07-14-2011, 9:19 PM
Calm down and take a midol Oak.

I would like to see those kind of poll results too.

I think you might find them nationally, in CA, I'm not so sure.

I have seen the attitudes changing positively over the last year or so. It could be me meeting more gun people because I'm doing more gun rights stuff or gun people are starting to cut through the FUD since McDonald v. Chicago or just a plain change in the general public.

We've got a long way to go but the signs are good. Lots of imigrants are eager to own guns because they were unable to in their home land, many people who previously believed the "militia only" collective right lie now understand that RKBA is an individual right. We still don't have the votes to make a voter initiative work.

Dreaded Claymore
07-14-2011, 9:58 PM
I want to be that battered wife that cuts off Dianne Feinstein's penis and shreds it in the garbage disposal.

I'm staying.

Cute. However, I think Feinstein will require decapitation, filling the mouth with garlic, a stake through the heart and burying at a crossroads.

Oh, definitely. Because if you don't stake and behead her, correctly apply garlic, and bury her properly, I guarantee you she will rise from the grave and get re-elected. Get Dr. van Helsing on the phone!

oaklander
07-14-2011, 10:02 PM
Calm down and take a midol Oak.

I would like to see those kind of poll results too.

I think you might find them nationally, in CA, I'm not so sure.

I have seen the attitudes changing positively over the last year or so. It could be me meeting more gun people because I'm doing more gun rights stuff or gun people are starting to cut through the FUD since McDonald v. Chicago or just a plain change in the general public.

We've got a long way to go but the signs are good. Lots of imigrants are eager to own guns because they were unable to in their home land, many people who previously believed the "militia only" collective right lie now understand that RKBA is an individual right. We still don't have the votes to make a voter initiative work.

Lol, I was just coming in to delete that post!

;-)

I forgot that I need to be nice oak for two weeks!

Google gun control opinion. Stats WAY up for last two years. Might be result of the big cases. Statistically, CA simply can't skew too far off the ave. Reason is that we are a diverse state. Most folks forget that geographically we are very pro gun. It's just that there are two huge pockets of anti gunners on the coast. The rest of the state is solid pro gun.

Can explain more at Murphys. But it's pretty simple concept. It's not written about much, so it's kind of something you have to deduce, etc. . . And then confirm.

This is easily deduced by looking at CCW issuance rates, etc. And likely some other tangential stats.

Point is the hearts and minds really only needs to be done in coastal urban areas, and that's it. . .

;-)

Still not a good or required idea, though!

Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

Milsurp Collector
07-15-2011, 1:27 AM
Google gun control opinion. Stats WAY up for last two years.

A slight majority of Americans (54%) in the latest national Gallup poll say gun control laws should stay the same or be less strict http://www.gallup.com/poll/145526/gallup-review-public-opinion-context-tucson-shootings.aspx. The support for gun rights in the other 49 states doesn't change the situation for gun owners in California. Where is the poll of California voters showing support for gun rights is "WAY UP"? Talking to people most of whom agree with you isn't really a valid poll.

Gun rights are advancing in other states (Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona, Iowa, Ohio) while in California it is the anti-gunners in the Legislature who are on offense, giving the majority of California voters who elected them what they want. The pro-gun rights side in California is always on defense ("call or email your representatives, tell them to vote AGAINST the latest outrage!"), trying to stop bad laws or trying to get them thrown out in court, but not succeeding at significantly expanding rights, as Wisconsin did when it went from no-issue to shall issue. AB 962 being thrown out was celebrated as a big "victory", when all it meant was California didn't lose even more ground. The other team's touchdown being nullified by a penalty isn't the same thing as your team scoring a touchdown.


Reason is that we are a diverse state.

In many ways (racially, culturally) yes, but politically, no.

California has given its Presidential electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in 5 of the last 5 Presidential elections. 2012 will make it 6 of 6.

California has repeatedly re-elected those noted champions of gun rights, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, to the US Senate.

Democrats, who with some exceptions tend to be pro-gun control, have controlled both houses of the Legislature for years and hold every major statewide office, from the Governor on down, including (importantly for gun owners) the Attorney General's office.

Face it, California is a solidly Democratic state. While not all Democrats are anti-gun, certainly most anti-gun voters and politicians are Democrats.


Most folks forget that geographically we are very pro gun.

If California is so pro-gun it would be easy to get pro-gun measures through the Legislature or approved through ballot initiatives.

Geographically large counties that are sparsely populated by pro-gun voters doesn't mean the state as a whole is "very pro gun". Since people, not land, get to vote, geographically small counties that are densely populated by anti-gun voters are far more significant than geographically large counties sparsely populated by pro-gun voters.

It is easy to be lulled into a false feeling that a large part of the state is "very pro-gun" by looking at a map like this (using votes for John McCain [red] as a proxy for "pro-gun" and votes for Barack Obama [blue] as a proxy for "anti-gun"):

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png

Because it shows geography, not population. It exaggerates the amount of red and diminishes the amount of blue, making the sate look "redder" than it really is.

But when you adjust the county size to be proportionate to population, with red for McCain, blue for Obama, and shades of purple for split votes, you see that California has very little red at all.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycartnonlin1024.png


It's just that there are two huge pockets of anti gunners on the coast.

Point is the hearts and minds really only needs to be done in coastal urban areas,

Where the vast majority of California's population/voters live. They are predominately Democratic, which tends to mean support for more gun control laws, and lack of support for expanding gun rights.

ccmc
07-15-2011, 5:56 AM
Thanks everyone for answering my question, and confirming what I've posted a few times about political affiliation and gun laws. Los Angeles and San Francisco are no more racially/culturally diverse than Miami yet the gun laws vary dramatically. If anything I would say that a democrat in Florida is more likely to be pro gun than a democrat in California. In any case Florida is a much more politically diverse state than California as past election results show. Good luck with your struggle in CA, and don't forget us non-residents who'd like to be able to have a way to legally carry in your state like you all can in ours.

wash
07-15-2011, 9:16 AM
This is your country:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png

This is your country on hope:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycartnonlin1024.png