PDA

View Full Version : Deadline looming...


Centurion_D
10-08-2011, 9:49 AM
Is anyone else beginning to sweat bullets about SB 427, SB 819, AB 144 and AB 809. I understand the Gov has till midnight tonight to veto these bills. Is that correct?

HowardW56
10-08-2011, 9:52 AM
Is anyone else beginning to sweat bullets about SB 427, SB 819, AB 144 and AB 809. I understand the Gov has till midnight tonight to veto these bills. Is that correct?

I believe it is midnight tomorrow... Or 12:00 AM on the 10th


But it wouldn't be the first time I've been24 hours off....

Centurion_D
10-08-2011, 9:53 AM
I believe it is midnight tomorrow... Or 12:00 AM on the 10th

Opps...I stand corrected. :facepalm:

Skidmark
10-08-2011, 10:48 AM
Is anyone else beginning to sweat bullets about SB 427, SB 819, AB 144 and AB 809. I understand the Gov has till midnight tonight to veto these bills. Is that correct?

Plenty of discussion on Brown's pending action on these bills here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=476965

Connor P Price
10-08-2011, 11:05 AM
He's going to do whatever he wants to do. I'm sure he's known the whole time what his position will be, so I'm not stressing. No sense fussing over something predetermined. I am quite interested that he's saving them for last though.

SwissFluCase
10-08-2011, 11:44 AM
He's going to do whatever he wants to do. I'm sure he's known the whole time what his position will be, so I'm not stressing. No sense fussing over something predetermined. I am quite interested that he's saving them for last though.

Are you kidding, this is a cliff hanger of epic proportions! :D

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Ubermcoupe
10-08-2011, 12:19 PM
If he doesn't explicitly veto them AND doesn't sign them into law, its de facto vetoed yes? This would allow him to veto the law and later on go "well I just didn't have the time" and appease the other side. :shrug:

Swiss
10-08-2011, 12:24 PM
I thought it's the other way - not signing or vetoing allows them to pass into law

SupportGeek
10-08-2011, 12:24 PM
If he doesn't explicitly veto them AND doesn't sign them into law, its de facto vetoed yes? This would allow him to veto the law and later on go "well I just didn't have the time" and appease the other side. :shrug:

IIRC, California works exactly the opposite way.
If he doesnt sign it, and doesnt explicitly veto, it becomes law anyhow.

Its messed up. IMO, there should be a clear and definite action taken on every bill (Yes/No for Veto). None of this "let it slide" crap.

RazzB7
10-08-2011, 12:26 PM
If he doesn't explicitly veto them AND doesn't sign them into law, its de facto vetoed yes? This would allow him to veto the law and later on go "well I just didn't have the time" and appease the other side. :shrug:

Nope. That's what he's going to do to US!

Maestro Pistolero
10-08-2011, 12:28 PM
I just tweeted the governor. Hopefully he'll get it in time to find his pen before midnight.

SwissFluCase
10-08-2011, 12:31 PM
He's working today...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Ubermcoupe
10-08-2011, 12:32 PM
IIRC, California works exactly the opposite way.
If he doesnt sign it, and doesnt explicitly veto, it becomes law anyhow.


Leave it to CA to be different...:facepalm:

Jerry better get his posterior in gear and get signing!

HowardW56
10-08-2011, 12:35 PM
Leave it to CA to be different...:facepalm:

Jerry better get his posterior in gear and get signing!


The Governors office just issued another press release...

He just signed or vetoed a bunch of environmental bills, storage tanks, utilities...

Connor P Price
10-08-2011, 12:36 PM
Are you kidding, this is a cliff hanger of epic proportions! :D

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I guess you can look at it as a cliffhanger because we don't know the answer yet. I just don't view it that way.

I look at this like a complex algebraic formula I haven't learned how to solve yet. Sure, I don't know the answer yet, but its predetermined and it will be the same no matter how or when I figure it out. Not much of a cliffhanger when the decision has essentially already been made.

Then again, I'm not all that excitable.

mrdd
10-08-2011, 12:51 PM
This is basically the way the federal government works, with one difference. There, the President has 10 days (excepting Sundays) to sign or veto a bill after it is presented to him, otherwise it becomes a law without his signature. Except, if the Congress is adjourned when the 10 days elapses it does not become a law (known as a pocket veto).

The difference is what is messed up about California, because it encourages the legislature to dump most of the bills on the Governor's desk at the end of a session since there is no pocket veto.

nicki
10-08-2011, 1:42 PM
If these were bills he actually believed in he would have signed them already so he could get good press.

He could just let them become law with no comment, while it makes the bills law, he isn't standing around cheering them.:mad:

OTOH, if he waits till Sunday evening, the bills become monday's news.

Weekends tend to be slow on news, weekdays are busy on news so the news worthiness of vetos gun bills would have a low priority.

Nicki

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2011, 1:45 PM
With all the people on this board telling us to vote for Jerry Brown because of his "Amicus Brief" and all I would have suspected Jerry Brown to have vetoed all of these bills by now.

Why would it take a "supposedly" pro 2nd-Amendment governor so long to make an obvious decision?

What's up?

Oh! And if you haven't heard by now, our "supposedly" pro 2nd-Amendment governor has signed the "Dream Act" which takes money from hard working law abiding citizens and gives it to non-citizens.

hoffmang
10-08-2011, 1:49 PM
Why would it take a "supposedly" pro 2nd-Amendment governor so long to make an obvious decision?
Because it makes no substantive difference upon which day he acts before Midnight Sunday night. Also, he may not wish the top stories to be about his action on gun bills. That cuts neither way, pro or anti civil rights.

-Gene

stix213
10-08-2011, 1:51 PM
Is anyone else beginning to sweat bullets about SB 427, SB 819, AB 144 and AB 809. I understand the Gov has till midnight tonight to veto these bills. Is that correct?

bullets being sweated.... thumb printed and registered bullets

Come on JB, don't let us down.

Bad Voodoo
10-08-2011, 1:53 PM
With all the people on this board telling us to vote for Jerry Brown...

You mean the "campaigning" being done by Calguns officers as individuals exercising their 1A rights, don't you? Let's hope, considering their affiliation and influence on the voting decisions of many members here, they don't ultimately end up w/ egg on their faces over these bills.

<fingerscrossed>

stix213
10-08-2011, 1:54 PM
You mean the "campaigning" being done by Calguns officers as individuals exercising their 1A rights, don't you? Let's hope, considering their affiliation and influence on the voting decisions of many members here, they don't ultimately end up w/ egg on their faces over these bills.

<fingerscrossed>

Its not like Meg was going to rev up the veto pen :rolleyes:

Bad Voodoo
10-08-2011, 1:56 PM
Its not like Meg was going to rev up the veto pen :rolleyes:

Great argument. See, that's the problem w/ lemmings. One runs off the cliff, they all die. :rolleyes:

hoffmang
10-08-2011, 1:58 PM
You mean the "campaigning" being done by Calguns officers as individuals exercising their 1A rights, don't you? Let's hope, considering their affiliation and influence on the voting decisions of many members here, they don't ultimately end up w/ egg on their faces over these bills.

<fingerscrossed>

I love how your more interested in pre-blaming those working to expand your rights than placing the blame where it is due.

-Gene

MrClamperSir
10-08-2011, 2:03 PM
I love how your more interested in pre-blaming those working to expand your rights than placing the blame where it is due.

-Gene

:D.

Bad Voodoo
10-08-2011, 2:05 PM
I love how your more interested in pre-blaming those working to expand your rights than placing the blame where it is due.

-Gene

Blame? No, not yet Gene. Just a bit of acid reflux (and hoping it doesn't turn into a full-blown ulcer after Sunday).

Your effort, as well as those of others (NRA, CRPA, 2AF, et al) are GREATLY appreciated, but let's not forget who's money you're using to expand my rights - more than a few of those dollars are my own.

Simply speaking, count me in the camp of those who think CGF officers shouldn't shall we say, be so overt re: their political opinions. It's a position that keeps you safe in just these kinds of circumstances.

SupportGeek
10-08-2011, 2:56 PM
Blame? No, not yet Gene. Just a bit of acid reflux (and hoping it doesn't turn into a full-blown ulcer after Sunday).

Your effort, as well as those of others (NRA, CRPA, 2AF, et al) are GREATLY appreciated, but let's not forget who's money you're using to expand my rights - more than a few of those dollars are my own.

Simply speaking, count me in the camp of those who think CGF officers shouldn't shall we say, be so overt re: their political opinions. It's a position that keeps you safe in just these kinds of circumstances.

So your opinion is that anyone that is looked up to by a group of individuals should not express a political opinion at all?
Should the NRA stop grading politicians too? its the same thing.
I bet your answer is no on that though because we are talking about a liberal candidate that our guys showed to have a better 2a bias than the "supposedly" conservative one.
Had Meg been elected instead of Brown, would you still be singing her praises once she signed these into law the first day they landed on her desk?

hoffmang
10-08-2011, 2:56 PM
Simply speaking, count me in the camp of those who think CGF officers shouldn't shall we say, be so overt re: their political opinions. It's a position that keeps you safe in just these kinds of circumstances.

Speaking as a gun owner and not on CGF's behalf, I'm quite confident that today we have a whole lot more hope in the veto pen of Mr. Brown than Mrs. Whitman. Anyone who thinks differently about that hasn't really reflected on Mrs. Whitman.

-Gene

Bad Voodoo
10-08-2011, 3:19 PM
Speaking as a gun owner and not on CGF's behalf, I'm quite confident that today we have a whole lot more hope in the veto pen of Mr. Brown than Mrs. Whitman. Anyone who thinks differently about that hasn't really reflected on Mrs. Whitman.

-Gene

I don't disagree, Gene. Having said that, CGF individuals boasted CONFIDENCE during your various campaign(s) that JB would wouldn't hesitate to veto on behalf of 2A rights. That's my recollection, anyway. There's a mile-wide chasm separating the meaning of the word confidence vs hope, the word you're using today. As I said, acid reflux (so far).

As for what I believe... I believe officers of non-profits should tread very carefully where political 'endorsements' and the media platforms at their disposal (like Calguns) from where they can/should 'campaign', are concerned. Some might consider that kind of activity a conflict of interest. I happen to be one of them.

Connor P Price
10-08-2011, 3:47 PM
I don't recall anyone in CGF stating that the foundation had an established position or opinion on any candidate at any time. Nor have I ever seen any of them post anything that could be construed as an official statement by them in their capacity as Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or what have you.

While they may have positions within the foundation, they are individuals as well. Any individual should be more than welcome to comment on a candidate who they view as beneficial to our cause. (Or less harmful as the case often is.)

wildhawker
10-08-2011, 3:47 PM
Bad,

Nothing in the law compels me to give up my right to speak because of association. Sorry that you feel the way you do, but please allow me to be clear: I'll not be waiving my right to speak, assemble, publish, or protest because I happen to have a volunteer gig I don't get paid to do.

-Brandon

hoffmang
10-08-2011, 3:52 PM
Some might consider that kind of activity a conflict of interest. I happen to be one of them.

As, for example, a member of the CRPA board of directors who can and do advocate for and against candidates - I am quite confident that having the lesser of two evils (and maybe not even an evil, the next 36 hours will be fun) be the person wielding the veto pen.

You're "concern" doesn't even make logical sense unless you somehow think we'd be better with Meg.

-Gene

Paul S
10-08-2011, 4:03 PM
Be prepared...

Do not be blindsided if/when the Governor allows them to become law without his signature. He is after all Gerald Brown and he remains a liberal at his core.
We'll just have to see how it all unfolds.

SwissFluCase
10-08-2011, 4:04 PM
If these were bills he actually believed in he would have signed them already so he could get good press.

He could just let them become law with no comment, while it makes the bills law, he isn't standing around cheering them.:mad:

OTOH, if he waits till Sunday evening, the bills become monday's news.

Weekends tend to be slow on news, weekdays are busy on news so the news worthiness of vetos gun bills would have a low priority.

Nicki

He is going through the bills by topic. My guess is he will announce the guns bills with a whole bunch of other penal related stuff.

He just did another batch in the last two hours (education).

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Don29palms
10-08-2011, 4:15 PM
Jerry Brown is a worthless demonrat POS! And yes Meg Whitman would have been far worse. This state is becoming more communist every day. With all the welfare trash, border jumpers and entitled unemployed if you have a job in this state you are a minority. I'll be so very glad when my sentence is up in this gulag named Kalifornia!

dantodd
10-08-2011, 4:31 PM
Jerry Brown is a worthless demonrat POS! And yes Meg Whitman would have been far worse. This state is becoming more communist every day. With all the welfare trash, border jumpers and entitled unemployed if you have a job in this state you are a minority. I'll be so very glad when my sentence is up in this gulag named Kalifornia!

If you hate being here so much and you have no faith in our efforts why do you continue to post your hateful partisan opinions here where they are not particularly appreciated and do not represent even a small minority of the people here? Calling people names and other such derogatory statements do nothing to help us win over the majority of the legislature and state who happen to be democrats. It also only drives away others who mig be democrats and want to participate here.


If I have to choose between democrats who want to help us and people like you who are non-supportive, have no interest in staying here and see their time in California as a jail sentence I choose the democrats who are helpful.

Wrangler John
10-08-2011, 7:47 PM
Speaking as a gun owner and not on CGF's behalf, I'm quite confident that today we have a whole lot more hope in the veto pen of Mr. Brown than Mrs. Whitman. Anyone who thinks differently about that hasn't really reflected on Mrs. Whitman.

-Gene

I reflected on Mrs. Whitman, and came to the conclusion that we would be better off defeating her. Firearms freedom was not the major issue to me, rather it was making the statement to the California Republican Party that candidates should reflect the ideals of Republicanism. About.com defines Republicanism thus:

"Republicanism is the ideology embraced by members of a republic -- a form of government in which leaders are elected for a specific period by the preponderance of the citizenry, and laws are passed by leaders for the benefit of the entire republic, rather than a select aristocracy. In an ideal republic, leaders are selected from among the working citizenry, serve the republic for a defined period, then return to their work, never to serve again.

"Republicanism stresses several key concepts; notably, the importance of civic virtue, the benefits of universal political participation, the dangers of corruption, the need for separate powers and a healthy reverence for the rule of law.

"From these concepts, one paramount value stands apart -- political liberty. For Republicans, political liberty entails not only freedom from government interference in private affairs, it also places great emphasis on self-discipline and self-reliance. Political liberty keeps government out of individuals' lives (unless to do this threatens the republic as a whole), it also prevents the government from becoming a guardian to its individuals. The role of government in a republic is to safeguard the collective republic."

If Jerry Brown is anathema to those ideals, he is never the less, not guilty of being a member of the elite aristocracy attempting to purchase high office as play thing. We can no longer reward RINO's and charlatans posing as populists, such as Schwarzenegger, but demand candidates embodying virtue especially personal integrity. Meg lacked that character, while Brown is true to his ideology that has become tempered with age and experience.

Win or lose, we will ultimately triumph, as the political and socioeconomic climate is changing dramatically.

eville
10-08-2011, 8:00 PM
I don't care what the **** moonbeam does.
I'm grateful we have the right people working for us. Thanks to gene, Brandon and everyone else for all you do.

Quser.619
10-08-2011, 8:02 PM
I didn't vote for Brown & will be pleasantly surprised if he veto's the Bills. I agree that Meg wasn't even close to be an ideal candidate. In fact Tom McClintock has an article/speech on RCP, here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/08/a_second_term_for_obama_would_make_the_united_stat es_go_as_california_has_gone_111620.html), warning the nation not to do what California has done. Regardless of your views on McClintock, he makes valid points & gives a dire warning.

But Gene, your point cuts both ways. If Brown doesn't veto the bills, then votes were wasted in favor of someone that's fully indebted to public unions & a political party that supports those politicians who are creating these unconstitutional laws we all fear.

I don't doubt for a minute that we'll eventually prevail to over-turn or out-smart our opponents, unless one of the SCOTUS five retires & Obama gets to appointment a replacement.

Tier One Arms
10-08-2011, 8:05 PM
I check the forum once an hour to see if he has vetoed, I hope he acts soon.

Dark Mod
10-08-2011, 8:18 PM
Id rather have Meg, If were not going to have gun rights with either candidate id settle for not having the dream act

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2011, 8:26 PM
Id rather have Meg, If were not going to have gun rights with either candidate id settle for not having the dream act

.....This^

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2011, 8:26 PM
Because it makes no substantive difference upon which day he acts before Midnight Sunday night. Also, he may not wish the top stories to be about his action on gun bills. That cuts neither way, pro or anti civil rights.

-Gene

So, what you are saying is that Jerry Brown is a ****ing coward!

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2011, 8:31 PM
During the 2010 midterm elections, the entire nation went Republican except for California. It went more Democrat.

The Democrats have had control of the California's state legislature for decades and now they have a super majority.

If these stupid Democrats wouldn't create asinine bills and pass them in their Democrat controlled committees, then we wouldn't have to rely on a stupid governor to veto such asinine bills.

Do you get the picture folks! Well, do ya?

HowardW56
10-08-2011, 8:56 PM
So, what you are saying is that Jerry Brown is a ****ing coward!

What he is saying is that Governor Brown is politically astute...

darkwater
10-09-2011, 9:51 AM
During the 2010 midterm elections, the entire nation went Republican except for California. It went more Democrat.

The Democrats have had control of the California's state legislature for decades and now they have a super majority.

Actually, the Democrats are 2 votes short in both the Senate and Assembly from having a super majority (two-thirds majority requirement for certain votes). They have 25 in the Senate, but need 27 out of 40, and they have 52 in the Assembly, but need 54 out of 80.

HowardW56
10-09-2011, 9:58 AM
Actually, the Democrats are 2 votes short in both the Senate and Assembly from having a super majority (two-thirds majority requirement for certain votes). They have 25 in the Senate, but need 27 out of 40, and they have 52 in the Assembly, but need 54 out of 80.


I thought that was the case, but I was unsure of the numbers...

bruss01
10-09-2011, 11:49 AM
So, what you are saying is that Jerry Brown is a ****ing coward!

Right... just like you're a coward when you wear a seat belt in your car, or a helmet on your motorcycle, or a life-jacket on your boat.

It's called common sense. Take risk only when there is a benefit that outweighs the potential consequences. Don't burn your bridges until you've crossed them. Managing your public image and budgeting your "political capital" for important battles is part of how you stay in the game as a politician, instead of becoming a flash-in-the-pan who says all the right things, but rarely gets anything important accomplished because you shot your wad too early or offended people in one battle who you need on your side in another battle.

If it helps Brown stay in the game, working under the table to thwart the anti-gun forces, I'm ready to dance a Snoopy-Happy-Dance that he managed to get his veto of some bad gun bills buried on back page news under a hundred other "cabbage protection bill" and "swingset inspection authorization bill" stories.

Of course Brown could easily moot my point above by signing the bills or simply not signing them. I suspect he will not sign one or more, and veto at least one or more. So he'll manage to do us SOME good without actually telegraphing his 2A support too strongly. And that will have a certain amount of suckage to it. I think he'll justify vetoing anything that costs the state money, and sign anything that actually brings in money, or saves it. He is all about the bottom line these days, which isn't entirely a bad thing considering the state's current fiscal condition.

MolonLabe2008
10-09-2011, 1:22 PM
I'm already getting sick of the Jerry Brown apologists on this board in the event that some or all of these anti-2nd Amendment Bills pass.

Jerry Brown's environmental regulations are going to kill jobs.

Jerry Brown's "Dream Act" is rewarding illegal activity and is going to rob citizens of potential academic aid.

Jerry Brown's do-nothing approach to the bloated public union pension problem is ignoring the real cause of California's budget problems.

And now if Jerry Brown fails us on the 2nd Amendment issue, then why would he have been better than Meg Whitman?

And believe me, I was no Meg Whitman fan.

komifornian
10-09-2011, 1:32 PM
Does anybody know how the ammo bill will affect buying brass, bullets and powder if at all?

HowardW56
10-09-2011, 1:57 PM
He signed some more bills.....

But nothing on firearms..

Ima2Avoter
10-10-2011, 1:05 AM
This just in, looks like it might be good news. Go to this link:

http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert101011.shtml