PDA

View Full Version : There will NOT be Shall Issue CCW in CA. Give it up.


Pages : [1] 2

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 1:34 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

G60
10-10-2011, 1:36 PM
It's not going to be legislation the changes the process. Thanks, bye.

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 1:36 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

You have no evidence or facts to back up your claim.

Shenaniguns
10-10-2011, 1:37 PM
You're wrong, there is some areas that are nearly "Shall Issue" like Sacramento County for example.

gun toting monkeyboy
10-10-2011, 1:38 PM
I am happy that you feel that way. But the Big Brains that have been working on this strategy for the past several years, and spending big bucks to do so seem to think otherwise. You can nay-say all you like, it is a free country. But don't expect a bunch of us to jump up and down and decide that you are right. Yes, yoou said it on here. Good for you. But when we get shall issue LTC, will you stand by this statement?

-Mb

wash
10-10-2011, 1:39 PM
I agree that a UOC won't help get us shall issue but I don't think we need help.

The CGF LTC sunshine initiative has already forced a couple counties to go virtual shall issue and hopefully the Richards case (formerly Sykes) will force the rest of them soon.

Don't be so pessimistic.

BigDogatPlay
10-10-2011, 1:39 PM
There is little to no intent that I can see to force anything by legislation in California. Forcing more equitable remedies by litigation, however, seems to be very much in the cards.

If you want to give up, that's your choice. I'll continue to fight, thanks very much.

mag360
10-10-2011, 1:41 PM
just diggin in deeper over here. Kthxbye. We won't miss your white flag waving whining rear end anyways.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 1:41 PM
WOW, is this a news flash?

I already have "shall issue" for self defense as MANY Californians do!!

taperxz
10-10-2011, 1:43 PM
There is little to no intent that I can see to force anything by legislation in California. Forcing more equitable remedies by litigation, however, seems to be very much in the cards.

If you want to give up, that's your choice. I'll continue to fight, thanks very much.

But in a different way legislation did help and will help! See Richards:D

zhyla
10-10-2011, 1:43 PM
No, no, he's right, let's just give up.

Hahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahah.

mosinnagantm9130
10-10-2011, 1:43 PM
http://www.omgwtfimages.com/uploads/thumb/thumb_185.jpg

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 1:43 PM
I am happy that you feel that way. But the Big Brains that have been working on this strategy for the past several years, and spending big bucks to do so seem to think otherwise. You can nay-say all you like, it is a free country. But don't expect a bunch of us to jump up and down and decide that you are right. Yes, yoou said it on here. Good for you. But when we get shall issue LTC, will you stand by this statement?

-Mb

I already have a steak dinner bet with bulgron going on. Wild squid is afflicted with BGOS.

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 1:45 PM
Gene? Brandon? WTF guys? You never told us about this. I want my money back. Somebody on the internet said we won't get shall issue, and anything on the internet is true.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Doheny
10-10-2011, 1:54 PM
In a way the OP is correct. We may never have it as a 'right.' Those of you that think your county is shall issue now or your county accepts self defense as a GC could be in for a surprise at the next sheriff election. It could go away overnight just like it did in Orange County.


Sent from my iPhone

berto
10-10-2011, 1:58 PM
I thought it was only raining outside my window but apparently the sky is falling. Oh noes, what to do?

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 1:58 PM
You have no evidence or facts to back up your claim.

I never said I have evidence to back this up. Its simply my belief.

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 1:58 PM
In a way the OP is correct. We may never have it as a 'right.' Those of you that think your county is shall issue now or your county accepts self defense as a GC could be in for a surprise at the next sheriff election. It could go away overnight just like it did in Orange County.


Sent from my iPhone

So none of the various carry cases working their way up through the courts will successfully solidify a right to carry at SCOTUS? Furthermore, once a right its established the "good cause" and "good moral character" requirements will stand as part of California's regulatory regime? Doesn't seem likely to me.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

taperxz
10-10-2011, 1:59 PM
Masciandaro

Richards

Ventura County/ CGF Sunshine Initiative

Sacramento

And all the other shall issue counties say you are probably wrong in your analogy

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 1:59 PM
But when we get shall issue LTC, will you stand by this statement?

-Mb


Course not, I'll be in line applying for CCW also. Its just words and my belief, its not like I'm putting my life my on the line.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 2:01 PM
You're wrong, there is some areas that are nearly "Shall Issue" like Sacramento County for example.

Yea well that doesn't mean anything to me because I live in Alameda County. The majority of the population of the state is still in the same boat as I am. You can gloat right now if you can get a CCW, but if "Standardization" changes that you'll be back in the big boat with me.

dotalchemy
10-10-2011, 2:02 PM
... its not like I'm putting my life my on the line.

/thread due to annihilation of all credibility.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 2:03 PM
WOW, is this a news flash?

I already have "shall issue" for self defense as MANY Californians do!!


Many Californians? But not ALL Californians right? And like I said, when the "Standardization" guidelines are release we'll see whether living in Lake County makes any difference over Alameda county.

NoHeavyHitter
10-10-2011, 2:06 PM
Also, I have more guns than you have money.

C'mon guys - he's clearly joking...

Including such a moronic statement (without any clue) was intended as proof that his post was idle sarcasm.

What he's trying to say is that he's not holding out any hope at this point that CA will become shall-issue like it is almost everywhere else.

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 2:06 PM
I've had people tell me that our sheriff has come to talk to them and told them that if they apply that they will get their Carry License. Not that they might but that they will.

My county is effectively Shall Issue. It didn't work this way a few years ago.

The change is even more dramatic elsewhere.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 2:07 PM
Masciandaro

Richards

Ventura County/ CGF Sunshine Initiative

Sacramento

And all the other shall issue counties say you are probably wrong in your analogy

Let me copy and paste this for you again. Standarization of good cause would be impossible! UNLESS good cause were for self defense. Think about it.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 2:09 PM
In a way the OP is correct. We may never have it as a 'right.' Those of you that think your county is shall issue now or your county accepts self defense as a GC could be in for a surprise at the next sheriff election. It could go away overnight just like it did in Orange County.


Sent from my iPhone

Thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying. For those who think they got it made now, may be just as screwed as me once "Standardization" comes through. The key is now what "Standardization" is.

Let's all face the possibility that "Standardization" will require a Good Cause Statement, much like what we have now for those that live in Alameda and LA County where there's no hope for CCW for majority of people. Who really has a good cause? What will be a good cause? Can we just say we wish to defend ourselves at all times wherever we go? I suspect that will not be a good cause. Only way I see is to make something up and lie. We'll see how it plays out.

Smokeybehr
10-10-2011, 2:10 PM
Can I just toss out an "STFU, noob" and get it over with? Squid, you have no clue of what you're talking about. There are so many angles to the whole situation now that either LOC or Shall Issue CHL will be eventual outcome. If the court challenges are not already in the works, then they are quickly forthcoming.

Wherryj
10-10-2011, 2:11 PM
You're wrong, there is some areas that are nearly "Shall Issue" like Sacramento County for example.

...and it will be a joyous day when both Santa Clara and Alameda Counties are dragged kicking and screaming to join the party.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 2:12 PM
Thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying. For those who think they got it made now, may be just as screwed as me once "Standardization" comes through. The key is now what "Standardization" is.

Let's all face the possibility that "Standardization" will require a Good Cause Statement, much like what we have now for those that live in Alameda and LA County where there's no hope for CCW for majority of people. Who really has a good cause? What will be a good cause? Can we just say we wish to defend ourselves at all times wherever we go? I suspect that will not be a good cause. Only way I see is to make something up and lie. We'll see how it plays out.


Obviously you have no idea about what happened in ventura county! I suggest you go to the CGF website and find out. I'll give you a hint into your inquiry, EQUAL PROTECTION;)

Crom
10-10-2011, 2:12 PM
I already have a steak dinner bet with bulgron going on. Wild squid is afflicted with BGOS.

x2 Very true. He needs a dose of a high-power something or another to cure him. Maybe a new .308 rifle? :D

Richards and Peruta just got a whole heck-of-a lot more interesting now that AB144 was signed into law.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 2:13 PM
/thread due to annihilation of all credibility.

I'm not going to get into some stupid ignorant battle about credibility. You can believe me or not. I'm merely stating my belief what will happen based on how our current legislature is going. If you want to refute my beliefs then offer something of a reason up other than my credibility.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 2:13 PM
...and it will be a joyous day when both Santa Clara and Alameda Counties are dragged kicking and screaming to join the party.

Believe me, I hope this day comes as well.

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 2:16 PM
I'm not going to get into some stupid ignorant battle about credibility. You can believe me or not. I'm merely stating my belief what will happen based on how our current legislature is going. If you want to refute my beliefs then offer something of a reason up other than my credibility.

Plenty of reasons cited above, with no substantive reply from you. Bottom line: (A) you have no evidence to support your belief, but (B) you believe it anyway. That's faith, friend, and I'm sorry you have faith in hopelessness. What's worse is that there is truly much to be hopeful for.

The events of last night are simply a molehill, not anything close to a mountain.

-Brandon

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 2:16 PM
Obviously you have no idea about what happened in ventura county! I suggest you go to the CGF website and find out. I'll give you a hint into your inquiry, EQUAL PROTECTION;)

In addition, it might be worth it for the op to learn how good cause and good moral character are determined by the 58 sheriffs. Then look up the definition of a fun legal term, "arbitrary and capricious."

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

taperxz
10-10-2011, 2:17 PM
I'm not going to get into some stupid ignorant battle about credibility. You can believe me or not. I'm merely stating my belief what will happen based on how our current legislature is going. If you want to refute my beliefs then offer something of a reason up other than my credibility.


I did this for you http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/news/177-venturagcrelease.html

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 2:18 PM
Can I just toss out an "STFU, noob" and get it over with? Squid, you have no clue of what you're talking about. There are so many angles to the whole situation now that either LOC or Shall Issue CHL will be eventual outcome. If the court challenges are not already in the works, then they are quickly forthcoming.

Hey pal, if its a war of words you want to get into I could easily do that, but unfortunately this forum doesn't allow it. You have not put up a reason that challenges any of my beliefs. Angles? Please, we just got our arses handed to us by Jerry Brown, and he's top dog in the state. He signs bills into law, and we're losing the battle. All I hear is Calguns claiming things are going to be a changing for years but I see nothing changing except more rights taken away!!!

G60
10-10-2011, 2:18 PM
Course not, I'll be in line applying for CCW also.

Exactly. Why don't you join the team and stop trying to discourage those whose coattails you're going to ride in on.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 2:19 PM
In addition, it might be worth it for the op to learn how good cause and good moral character are determined by the 58 sheriffs. Then look up the definition of a fun legal term, "arbitrary and capricious."

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Good Cause and moral character will not be determined by sheriffs, it will be determined by the "Standardization" process that is coming. That is the key.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 2:20 PM
Good Cause and moral character will not be determined by sheriffs, it will be determined by the "Standardization" process that is coming. That is the key.

Please tell me where you get this "standardization of good cause from"

Other than moral character, "non prohibited person" the application is based on facts.

IPSICK
10-10-2011, 2:20 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

Another poster child for BGOS.

Btw, since you're in AlaCo like I am, guess what else went away with the signing of SB610?

Clue it has 'million' and 'liability insurance' in it. If we can appropriately standardize 'good cause', we are well on our way to victory.

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 2:25 PM
Good Cause and moral character will not be determined by sheriffs, it will be determined by the "Standardization" process that is coming. That is the key.

That standardization process is called: "Opinion by Kennedy, joining him Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts (Chief.)"

-Gene

Ubermcoupe
10-10-2011, 2:28 PM
I never said I have evidence to back this up. Its simply my belief.

In no way meaning to be a personal attack, just a clarification:

If you really feel that way:

Why are you here?
What do your comments add to "the fight"?
If you just want a deal on a gun via the market place, why do you bother posting, instead of just browsing.
:shrug:
I get if you want to rant, maybe even suffer from BGOS, but this (not your) negativity serves no purpose.


As it is your belief that LTC will never be Shall issue, that's fine, I will respect that as your opinion, but I disagree.

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 2:34 PM
Good Cause and moral character will not be determined by sheriffs, it will be determined by the "Standardization" process that is coming. That is the key.

What are you taking about?

Curley Red
10-10-2011, 2:34 PM
Also, I have more guns than you have money.


This is where I stopped reading. Whoppie, big deal, you are cooling then all us. :thumbsup:

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 2:35 PM
Good Cause and moral character will not be determined by sheriffs, it will be determined by the "Standardization" process that is coming. That is the key.

You've invested too heavily into an NRA press release that doesn't do the facts justice.

The bill substantively changes nothing about how the law operates with respect to LTCs. It effectively restates constraints and mandates that were already present in the Penal Code. What it DOES do is allow me to call a sheriff and tell them that the Legislature actually meant what they did in 1998, and if we sue them for violating one of the restated provisions, it makes it rather easy for the judge to find in our favor.

-Brandon

POLICESTATE
10-10-2011, 2:39 PM
Well there certainly won't be with that attitude. Just have to keep at it. Don Quixote and all that.


There will NOT be Shall Issue CCW in CA. Give it up.

Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

HowardW56
10-10-2011, 2:40 PM
You've invested too heavily into an NRA press release that doesn't do the facts justice.

The bill substantively changes nothing about how the law operates with respect to LTCs. It effectively restates constraints and mandates that were already present in the Penal Code. What it DOES do is allow me to call a sheriff and tell them that the Legislature actually meant what they did in 1998, and if we sue them for violating one of the restated provisions, it makes it rather easy for the judge to find in our favor.

-Brandon

:willy_nilly::willy_nilly::willy_nilly: You mean the sky isn't falling? :willy_nilly::willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

Legasat
10-10-2011, 2:41 PM
I don't really care if California officially becomes a "Shall Issue" state, as long as we become effectively a shall issue state.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 2:43 PM
In no way meaning to be a personal attack, just a clarification:

If you really feel that way:

Why are you here?
What do your comments add to "the fight"?
If you just want a deal on a gun via the market place, why do you bother posting, instead of just browsing.
:shrug:
I get if you want to rant, maybe even suffer from BGOS, but this (not your) negativity serves no purpose.


As it is your belief that LTC will never be Shall issue, that's fine, I will respect that as your opinion, but I disagree.

I'm here because I wish to offer up a different perspective from the zombie mentality has become here. Seriously, I feel many here have their heads up their asses thinking they're going to win just like the Confederate South thought they were going to win. Sometimes it takes a slap to the face to wake someone up. I know I'm not going to win over the masses, but hey, at least I told ya'll so.

As to the "fight", the fight is lost. Ya'll just don't realize it.

What is BGOS?

Yea I know I'm being negative, at least I'm stating what I believe will happen instead of following the herd of buffalo off the cliff.

rero360
10-10-2011, 2:45 PM
ReYfu5E-hOE

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 2:45 PM
You still haven't answered my question.

zonzin
10-10-2011, 2:46 PM
,,,, but if "Standardization" changes that you'll be back in the big boat with me.

That's what I'm worried about. Take the lowest common denominator and make it the state wide "standard". Really hope I dont get a letter in the box saying to destroy my card and put the guns in the safe. :(


.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 2:47 PM
I'm here because I wish to offer up a different perspective from the zombie mentality has become here. Seriously, I feel many here have their heads up their asses thinking they're going to win just like the Confederate South thought they were going to win. Sometimes it takes a slap to the face to wake someone up. I know I'm not going to win over the masses, but hey, at least I told ya'll so.

As to the "fight", the fight is lost. Ya'll just don't realize it.

What is BGOS?

Yea I know I'm being negative, at least I'm stating what I believe will happen instead of following the herd of buffalo off the cliff.

Perhaps i should send tissue paper your way?

Your analogy is so far off its like saying goodbye to your whole family telling them that you had a great life and your going to die because you are getting in a car and could possibly get in an accident and die.

mkkeele
10-10-2011, 2:54 PM
As to the "fight", the fight is lost. Ya'll just don't realize it.


:rolleyes:

In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten, then he who continues the attack wins.
-Ulysses S. Grant

B.J.F.
10-10-2011, 2:55 PM
Theres a way around to get your CCW, Register a buisness with the state, get your resale licence, an run a part time buisness. They dont like self defence but when you have to go to a bank with large sums of money they accept business as a legitimate reason to carry

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 3:03 PM
Theres a way around to get your CCW, Register a buisness with the state, get your resale licence, an run a part time buisness. They dont like self defence but when you have to go to a bank with large sums of money they accept business as a legitimate reason to carry

Wow you get schooled on the federal registration act and now you make wrong comment #2 today.

radioman
10-10-2011, 3:04 PM
Wild Squid, cool down. sb610 is law right now, the thing to do is try it out first. why cry doom, why just roll over dead. to be or not to be, do you know what Shakespeare was saying. Yes things look dark right now, but are they, no they are not as we are still standing. the fight goes on, who runs under fire? are you that man?

PsychGuy274
10-10-2011, 3:05 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

I'm sorry, but people like you are the worst. This is like not understanding that you have to work for decades before you'll have one million dollars. Gun rights aren't a 'just snap your fingers and it will happen or won't' phenomenon...IT'S A PROCESS.

radioman
10-10-2011, 3:06 PM
Theres a way around to get your CCW, Register a buisness with the state, get your resale licence, an run a part time buisness. They dont like self defence but when you have to go to a bank with large sums of money they accept business as a legitimate reason to carry

Sticky this

Shenaniguns
10-10-2011, 3:11 PM
Yea well that doesn't mean anything to me because I live in Alameda County. The majority of the population of the state is still in the same boat as I am. You can gloat right now if you can get a CCW, but if "Standardization" changes that you'll be back in the big boat with me.


You have to be patient as the rest of us who are or were waiting in line.
This possibly outdated map gets greener and greener by the year:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png


If it's going the opposite way then please correct me Mr. Pessimist.

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 3:14 PM
Sticky this

I'm laughing at the sheer stupidity of this because it's horrifically too cute by half and potentially unlawful also.

-Brandon

desertjosh
10-10-2011, 3:17 PM
Guys he's right. We should give up the fight. We are lucky they let us have certain guns to begin with!

1859sharps
10-10-2011, 3:27 PM
...we just got our arses handed to us by Jerry Brown...

if this is "getting our arses handed to us"...I will take this outcome any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

This is NOT California Gun Owner's "darkest" hour by any stretch. Disappointing...yes. Less than ideal...yes. Darkest hour, arses handed to us...Not even a long shot. I can think of legislative sessions that ended FAR, FAR, FAR worse. 89 "assault" weapons ban, 99 expansion of that law, the handgun roster, 50 cal ban, lead ban, expansion of handgun roster law just to name a few true "arses handed to us" years.

If this is the new "arses handed to us", things are looking up and we are truly winning this battle.

vonderplatz
10-10-2011, 3:28 PM
California is my home, I'm not leaving, I'm not giving up no matter what. As long as I am able to vote I will vote for people who support my civil rights, and if they lie to me I'll vote for someone else, and help CGN wherever and whenever I can.

I admit I get depressed from time to time and think whats the use, but really what would my all those Vets who died for our rights think if we gave up because we lost a vote.

Ding126
10-10-2011, 3:31 PM
.....My glass is half full

Icypu
10-10-2011, 3:33 PM
I think we should think positive. OP seems depressed. Maybe he needs to put down his guns and be hugged by a large breasted man, or woman.

lawaia
10-10-2011, 3:35 PM
I'm here because I wish to offer up a different perspective from the zombie mentality has become here. Seriously, I feel many here have their heads up their asses thinking they're going to win just like the Confederate South thought they were going to win. Sometimes it takes a slap to the face to wake someone up. I know I'm not going to win over the masses, but hey, at least I told ya'll so.

As to the "fight", the fight is lost. Ya'll just don't realize it.

What is BGOS?

Yea I know I'm being negative, at least I'm stating what I believe will happen instead of following the herd of buffalo off the cliff.

Yup, that says it all right there.:troll:

Thanks for the insight.

CessnaDriver
10-10-2011, 3:37 PM
urESE_NQAco

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 3:38 PM
Still waiting on answers to my questions.

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 3:39 PM
BGOS. Battered Gun Owner Syndrome.

-Gene

tiki
10-10-2011, 3:42 PM
I have more guns than you have money.


You want people to take you serious with a statement like that? Ha!

I never said I have evidence to back this up. Its simply my belief.

Exactly. Keep believing.

vantec08
10-10-2011, 4:00 PM
No amount of legislation will, true enough - - -- but a spanking by SCOTUS would.

Jason P
10-10-2011, 4:03 PM
I don't really care if California officially becomes a "Shall Issue" state, as long as we become effectively a shall issue state.

Negative, official is the only thing that will really ever cement our freedom. Even then we must be extremely vigilant to maintain that freedom.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 4:18 PM
You know, I've made the same point on other forums I'm a part of, and the majority of people who have replied to me elsewhere seem to agree with me, whereas here in this forum I'm being treated like cancer. What do suppose that says about you all? Living in a fantasy world perhaps?

The people that got the bill passed to ban UOC, do you really think they were stupid to not consider that this would open the gates to let Shall Issue CCW through? No no no. They knew it alright. They considered it. And you know what they found? That Shall Issue CCW doesn't have a chance. You know why ? Because the people of CA don't want it. Yea I don't like this fact as much as any of you, but it is fact. Well, some of you mention SCOTUS? What if SCOTUS never hears the case? I don't even think they'll listen to it. And if they turn down the case what will you do then my little smurfs? Hmm??? And what if say it does make it to SCOTUS and they find in favor AGAINST CCW? HMM??? The recent addition of Sotomayor to one of the seats doesn't help does it?? HMM?

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 4:24 PM
Still waiting on answers to my questions.

Get a comfy chair.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 4:25 PM
You know, I've made the same point on other forums I'm a part of, and the majority of people who have replied to me elsewhere seem to agree with me, whereas here in this forum I'm being treated like cancer. What do suppose that says about you all? Living in a fantasy world perhaps?

The people that got the bill passed to ban UOC, do you really think they were stupid to not consider that this would open the gates to let Shall Issue CCW through? No no no. They knew it alright. They considered it. And you know what they found? That Shall Issue CCW doesn't have a chance. You know why ? Because the people of CA don't want it. Yea I don't like this fact as much as any of you, but it is fact. Well, some of you mention SCOTUS? What if SCOTUS never hears the case? I don't even think they'll listen to it. And if they turn down the case what will you do then my little smurfs? Hmm??? And what if say it does make it to SCOTUS and they find in favor AGAINST CCW? HMM??? The recent addition of Sotomayor to one of the seats doesn't help does it?? HMM?

Wow! What if you don't have all your facts straight? Really what if? Arent you then just using up bandwidth here? You need to do more calguns wiki and CGF search more. Everything you have mentioned is already on the docket, and being litigated as we speak.

berto
10-10-2011, 4:26 PM
You know, I've made the same point on other forums I'm a part of, and the majority of people who have replied to me elsewhere seem to agree with me, whereas here in this forum I'm being treated like cancer. What do suppose that says about you all? Living in a fantasy world perhaps?

The people that got the bill passed to ban UOC, do you really think they were stupid to not consider that this would open the gates to let Shall Issue CCW through? No no no. They knew it alright. They considered it. And you know what they found? That Shall Issue CCW doesn't have a chance. You know why ? Because the people of CA don't want it. Yea I don't like this fact as much as any of you, but it is fact. Well, some of you mention SCOTUS? What if SCOTUS never hears the case? I don't even think they'll listen to it. And if they turn down the case what will you do then my little smurfs? Hmm??? And what if say it does make it to SCOTUS and they find in favor AGAINST CCW? HMM??? The recent addition of Sotomayor to one of the seats doesn't help does it?? HMM?

Why do think SCOTUS won't take a case? Why do you think SCOTUS would rule against CCW? Sotomayor replaced a like voting justice but you knew that, right?

You're a defeatist, that's cool I guess, at least you can only be pleasantly surprised when things go our way.

markm
10-10-2011, 4:32 PM
I'm here because I wish to offer up a different perspective from the zombie mentality has become here. Seriously, I feel many here have their heads up their asses thinking they're going to win just like the Confederate South thought they were going to win. Sometimes it takes a slap to the face to wake someone up. I know I'm not going to win over the masses, but hey, at least I told ya'll so.

As to the "fight", the fight is lost. Ya'll just don't realize it.

What is BGOS?

Yea I know I'm being negative, at least I'm stating what I believe will happen instead of following the herd of buffalo off the cliff.

Hey Wild Squid,

I understand where you are coming from.

However, I want to add a disclaimer: I am greatful for what CalGuns has done and continues to do for RKBA, and for the work Calguns has done for the individuals who have had their civil rights trampled by LEO and prosecutors. An iteration: Thank You Calguns!

Some respondents to the OP have continually asked for evidence of Squid's viewpoint. May we jack this thread and discuss DC and Chicago? Heller and McDonald have incrementally changed RKBA in those cities. The city councils of Chicago and DC have thumbed their noses at SCOTUS, and then, for good measure, flipped SCOTUS off.

I predict that outstanding people, like those who continue to volunteer for Calguns, et allia, will be fighting this fight for a long time. We will get a favorable ruling and then the legislature will thumb their noses at the court by trying another unconstitutional angle to stop RKBA. Calguns will go back to court and win, and the legislature will flip-off the court again.

Squid, you and I share a common trait--we are brutally honest. Some people don't like that because it hurts their feelings.

The counties in Kali that are shall issue, or damn close to it, are somewhat to very conservative. Our legislature will not be conservative during the remainder of my life because of LA and the Bay Area.

I have been adjudicated guilty of a non-criminal, non-misdemeanor infraction; evidently, I was speeding. I can't get an LTC in Placer because of it. I must be a moral hazard and dangerous to LEO. Good cause, bulloney.

markm

sholling
10-10-2011, 4:32 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.
I'm old enough to remember when people said the same thing about integrated schools and integrated neighborhoods, and mixed marriages.

stix213
10-10-2011, 4:32 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

Let me take a wild guess that you also don't donate to any 2A rights organizations or do anything at all to help....

well other than try to convince others you are correct by telling them to give up the fight too, since if we win that proves you wrong. (otherwise you would have just kept your opinion to yourself)

lawaia
10-10-2011, 4:32 PM
You know, I've made the same point on other forums I'm a part of, and the majority of people who have replied to me elsewhere seem to agree with me, whereas here in this forum I'm being treated like cancer. What do suppose that says about you all? Living in a fantasy world perhaps?

The people that got the bill passed to ban UOC, do you really think they were stupid to not consider that this would open the gates to let Shall Issue CCW through? No no no. They knew it alright. They considered it. And you know what they found? That Shall Issue CCW doesn't have a chance. You know why ? Because the people of CA don't want it. Yea I don't like this fact as much as any of you, but it is fact. Well, some of you mention SCOTUS? What if SCOTUS never hears the case? I don't even think they'll listen to it. And if they turn down the case what will you do then my little smurfs? Hmm??? And what if say it does make it to SCOTUS and they find in favor AGAINST CCW? HMM??? The recent addition of Sotomayor to one of the seats doesn't help does it?? HMM?

If it smells like a rose and looks like a rose...................

What would you rather we all do, roll over and give up? Is that what would make you happy? You're barking in the wrong forum. Maybe stick to the other ones that like to bash any positive efforts being made.

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 4:33 PM
The people that got the bill passed to ban UOC, do you really think they were stupid to not consider that this would open the gates to let Shall Issue CCW through? No no no. They knew it alright. They considered it. And you know what they found? That Shall Issue CCW doesn't have a chance.

Like everything else you say I assume this is simply because you say so? Or do you have any solid reason to back this up?


You know why ? Because the people of CA don't want it. Yea I don't like this fact as much as any of you, but it is fact.

What does it matter what the people of CA want? We're not starting a ballot initiative for shall issue. Its a fight in the courts, what the people want doesn't mean a darn thing if what they want is found to be unconstitutional.


Well, some of you mention SCOTUS? What if SCOTUS never hears the case? I don't even think they'll listen to it.

So the same conservative justices that decided in our favor in Heller and McDonald aren't going to want to hear the cases working their way up? I'm sure you've got some solid reasoning to back that one up to.:confused:


And if they turn down the case what will you do then my little smurfs? Hmm??? And what if say it does make it to SCOTUS and they find in favor AGAINST CCW? HMM??? The recent addition of Sotomayor to one of the seats doesn't help does it?? HMM?

OMG RLY? Obama appointed liberal justices? Newsflash, they replaced other liberal justices! Those appointments can't reasonably be expected to change the way a carry decision would go.

The further this thread goes the more and more your posts seem like the senseless rantings of a mad man. You are confronted with solid reasoning at every turn and continue to turn a blind eye and instead follow your own baseless beliefs.

Oh, and I'm not your little smurf. Only Andrew Mendez can call me his little smurf. :43:

chiefcrash
10-10-2011, 4:35 PM
You know, I've made the same point on other forums I'm a part of, and the majority of people who have replied to me elsewhere seem to agree with me, whereas here in this forum I'm being treated like cancer. What do suppose that says about you all? Living in a fantasy world perhaps?

The people that got the bill passed to ban UOC, do you really think they were stupid to not consider that this would open the gates to let Shall Issue CCW through? No no no. They knew it alright. They considered it. And you know what they found? That Shall Issue CCW doesn't have a chance. You know why ? Because the people of CA don't want it. Yea I don't like this fact as much as any of you, but it is fact. Well, some of you mention SCOTUS? What if SCOTUS never hears the case? I don't even think they'll listen to it. And if they turn down the case what will you do then my little smurfs? Hmm??? And what if say it does make it to SCOTUS and they find in favor AGAINST CCW? HMM??? The recent addition of Sotomayor to one of the seats doesn't help does it?? HMM?

You know, you're right. We're living in a fantasy world...

I mean, it's obviously impossible to get anything close to a AR15 or AK47 in this state. That is, until the people on THIS WEBSITE *MADE* IT HAPPEN...

I mean, it's obviously impossible to get a handgun that's not on the roster in this state. That is, until the people on THIS WEBSITE *MADE* IT HAPPEN...

I could keep going, but hopefully you're catching a drift. We live in a fantasy world, true. But it's a fantasy world that we are slowly making reality...

goldrush
10-10-2011, 4:37 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

You're exactly right. The California advocates, while well intentioned, don't fight hard enough or play tough enough to get anywhere.

Just tonight, I saw some bigshot on this board poking fun at Alex Jones. Jones calls people out and gets people motivated. The California crowd appears polite, but soft and weak to the rest of the country. You're not going to win a fight with an army made of folks who eat tofu and alfalfa sprouts.

More Alex Jones. Less nicey-nice.

trevilli
10-10-2011, 4:37 PM
Why do think SCOTUS won't take a case? Why do you think SCOTUS would rule against CCW? Sotomayor replaced a like voting justice but you knew that, right?

You're a defeatist, that's cool I guess, at least you can only be pleasantly surprised when things go our way.
"Deafetist"? It sure seems like every time we look up, some judge in CA is denying our CCW rights. Ditto for the federal 9th circuit. Now we are pinning all our hopes on SCOTUS. If one of the Heller Five should (God forbid!) pass away under the current administration, guess what? I think you can figure out what will happen.

So I don't think Wild Squid is as "defeatist" as you're saying. Rather, it seems like we're always told that we are defeatist, or we just need to trust those people "in the know", etc. Well if you want us to believe, maybe you should stop with the cryptic phrases about "those in the know" and be more forthcoming.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 4:40 PM
You still haven't answered my question.

What is your question? I didn't see you ask anything.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 4:41 PM
License to Carry for all CA: A work in progress.

Fantasy: XXX rated DVD of your choice and watching by yourself.

Any Questions?

markm
10-10-2011, 4:41 PM
I'm old enough to remember when people said the same thing about integrated schools and integrated neighborhoods, and mixed marriages.

Hey sholling,

That was at least forty years ago. I will be long dead in another forty years.

markm

lawaia
10-10-2011, 4:41 PM
"Deafetist"? It sure seems like every time we look up, some judge in CA is denying our CCW rights. Ditto for the federal 9th circuit. Now we are pinning all our hopes on SCOTUS. If one of the Heller Five should (God forbid!) pass away under the current administration, guess what? I think you can figure out what will happen.

So I don't think Wild Squid is as "defeatist" as you're saying. Rather, it seems like we're always told that we are defeatist, or we just need to trust those people "in the know", etc. Well if you want us to believe, maybe you should stop with the cryptic phrases about "those in the know" and be more forthcoming.

Definition: Defeatism is acceptance of defeat without struggle.

Sounds like a good fit.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 4:42 PM
What is your question? I didn't see you ask anything.

He asked you for facts in regards to your concerns, not emotional drivel.

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 4:42 PM
You know, I've made the same point on other forums I'm a part of, and the majority of people who have replied to me elsewhere seem to agree with me, whereas here in this forum I'm being treated like cancer. What do suppose that says about you all? Living in a fantasy world perhaps?

Because those boards tend to be made up of non-Californians, and those boards I am also a member of (THR, GRM, TFL, OCDO, ARFCOM) and see the kind of crap that they spew.

The people that got the bill passed to ban UOC, do you really think they were stupid to not consider that this would open the gates to let Shall Issue CCW through? No no no. They knew it alright. They considered it. And you know what they found? That Shall Issue CCW doesn't have a chance. You know why ? Because the people of CA don't want it. Yea I don't like this fact as much as any of you, but it is fact.

What the people of California want doesn't matter when you're speaking of fundamental rights.

Well, some of you mention SCOTUS? What if SCOTUS never hears the case? I don't even think they'll listen to it. And if they turn down the case what will you do then my little smurfs? Hmm??? And what if say it does make it to SCOTUS and they find in favor AGAINST CCW? HMM??? The recent addition of Sotomayor to one of the seats doesn't help does it?? HMM?

Saying "HMM???" and talking down to us like children doesn't engender support for your viewpoint, or make you more correct. :rolleyes:

You have little to no understanding of strategic civil litigation. "The case" will likely not be a California case. It'll be a case from a different location, such as Peterson v. Martinez (CO) or Kachalsky v. Cacace (NY).

Our best lawyer :gura: is 2-0 at the Supreme Court.

I don't even live in California, and I have no intention of doing this to my California friends: :surrender:

Can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you engage in this sort of behavior?

trevilli
10-10-2011, 4:43 PM
Definition: Defeatism is acceptance of defeat without struggle.

Sounds like a good fit.
Given the fact that we are still a "may issue" state, and we have to appeal all the carry cases because they are being decided against us, maybe "realist" is a better fit?

lawaia
10-10-2011, 4:45 PM
Given the fact that we are still a "may issue" state, and we have to appeal all the carry cases because they are being decided against us, maybe "realist" is a better fit?

Have you personally contributed to trying to change that?

boxbro
10-10-2011, 4:46 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

When and if it comes I'm sure you wont be applying right ? :rolleyes:

trevilli
10-10-2011, 4:49 PM
Have you personally contributed to trying to change that?
Oh I see, so now you aren't telling me I'm wrong, you're questioning if I have helped changed it. Well thanks for agreeing with me!

And yes, I have personally contributed to trying to change that. Have you?

taperxz
10-10-2011, 4:50 PM
38 sheriffs basically deliver

20 sheriffs do not

We are winning!

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 4:50 PM
"Deafetist"? It sure seems like every time we look up, some judge in CA is denying our CCW rights. Ditto for the federal 9th circuit. Now we are pinning all our hopes on SCOTUS. If one of the Heller Five should (God forbid!) pass away under the current administration, guess what? I think you can figure out what will happen.

So I don't think Wild Squid is as "defeatist" as you're saying. Rather, it seems like we're always told that we are defeatist, or we just need to trust those people "in the know", etc. Well if you want us to believe, maybe you should stop with the cryptic phrases about "those in the know" and be more forthcoming.


Thank you. Nice to have a few supporters of what I'm saying. If ya'll would quit drinking the Kool Aid that is being fed to you by mob mentality in here you will realize that us 2A supporters are not exactly winning the war here. See the above in bold. Putting all your eggs into the SCOTUS basket is not what I would call "winning". Jerry Brown signing the bill last night, doesn't exactly feel like "winning". Does it??? OK, yes I admit I'm bringing the doom and gloom, but it is a perspective you all need to see as a possibility. I'm also not telling anyone to roll over, I just think the ultimate prize at stake here, Shall Issue CCW, is not going to happen based on recent turn of events. Believe me, What Jerry did last night was huge, he has turned his back on us when we believed he would help our cause. And without Jerry on our side, we are F#$%^.

trevilli
10-10-2011, 4:51 PM
38 sheriffs basically deliver
"Basically"? Meaning...what exactly? Any type of "heightened" good cause? Anything less than "because I want one" is less than acceptable.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 4:54 PM
If you count the counties in green or lime green, you will have a fantastic chance of getting a LTC thats what it means. Lime green only means slightly better good cause than self defense. ie: i walk home from work in the middle of the night and need to protect myself.

bulgron
10-10-2011, 4:54 PM
I already have a steak dinner bet with bulgron going on. Wild squid is afflicted with BGOS.

lol. He remembers!

:D

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 4:54 PM
He asked you for facts in regards to your concerns, not emotional drivel.


And I've already said I have no facts or evidence, it is all my personal belief, which you can choose to agree with or not. Besides, what I may consider fact is not what others will consider fact, so let's just leave it at difference of opinion.

ElvenSoul
10-10-2011, 4:56 PM
You guys really thought he would VETO! Come on how long ya been a 2A Supporter? Don't you know we have to sue their a@@es in court to get any rights.

trevilli
10-10-2011, 4:57 PM
If you count the counties in green or lime green, you will have a fantastic chance of getting a LTC thats what it means. Lime green only means slightly better good cause than self defense. ie: i walk home from work in the middle of the night and need to protect myself.

I live in a lime green county (San Mateo). And they will not issue because you walk home after dark. Nice try though.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 4:58 PM
Like everything else you say I assume this is simply because you say so? Or do you have any solid reason to back this up?



What does it matter what the people of CA want? We're not starting a ballot initiative for shall issue. Its a fight in the courts, what the people want doesn't mean a darn thing if what they want is found to be unconstitutional.



So the same conservative justices that decided in our favor in Heller and McDonald aren't going to want to hear the cases working their way up? I'm sure you've got some solid reasoning to back that one up to.:confused:



OMG RLY? Obama appointed liberal justices? Newsflash, they replaced other liberal justices! Those appointments can't reasonably be expected to change the way a carry decision would go.

The further this thread goes the more and more your posts seem like the senseless rantings of a mad man. You are confronted with solid reasoning at every turn and continue to turn a blind eye and instead follow your own baseless beliefs.

Oh, and I'm not your little smurf. Only Andrew Mendez can call me his little smurf. :43:


Its a fight in the courts? Tell me, which court do you think will lay down the final word on CCW? SCOTUS? Condemned criminals waiting to get executed appeal to be heard by SCOTUS all the time, real good option to place all your hope on eh?

lawaia
10-10-2011, 4:58 PM
Oh I see, so now you aren't telling me I'm wrong, you're questioning if I have helped changed it. Well thanks for agreeing with me!

And yes, I have personally contributed to trying to change that. Have you?

Yes I have. :facepalm::rofl2:

donw
10-10-2011, 4:59 PM
:rockon::popcorn::yawn:

this is, indeed, very interesting...to say the least.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 4:59 PM
And I've already said I have no facts or evidence, it is all my personal belief, which you can choose to agree with or not. Besides, what I may consider fact is not what others will consider fact, so let's just leave it at difference of opinion.

I don't think you understand, you are not considering facts. Your just FEEL this way. For what ever reason you seem not to want to get off this site for now, do some fact checking and then make a reasonable determination. You are basically spreading FUD. More sheriffs issue LTC's in this state than those that do not. Thats a FACT! More will be compelled through law. CGF even FORCED San Francisco to have a carry policy. They even got their one good cause statement out of them.

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 5:00 PM
What Jerry did last night was huge, he has turned his back on us when we believed he would help our cause. And without Jerry on our side, we are F#$%^.

What was huge? His signing of the carry license reform? Yes that was a huge help. His vetoing of the ammo bill? Yep, huge help there to. Signing the ban on open carry and eviscerating our oponents arguments in both Peruta and Richards? Huge help there to, even though its a violation of the first amendment. Long gun registration? Not really huge at all, kindof a yawn really.

Without Jerry on our side, we are F#$%^? How do you figure? We've never fought through the legislative branch, we don't have plans to fight through the legislative branch, at least that I know of. So why does it matter? Remember the last time an anti gun bill got passed? (hint: last years ammo bill) The courts took it down.

We are most certainly winning, you just see losses where there aren't any, see the minor losses as more significant than they are, and ignore the victories that are so prevalent.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 5:01 PM
When and if it comes I'm sure you wont be applying right ? :rolleyes:

If, and that's a really big IF , of course I'll apply. My ego is not too big to admit I was wrong. I do hope I'm wrong, sadly I don't think that's the case.

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 5:01 PM
Its a fight in the courts? Tell me, which court do you think will lay down the final word on CCW? SCOTUS? Condemned criminals waiting to get executed appeal to be heard by SCOTUS all the time, real good option to place all your hope on eh?

First of all, yes SCOTUS will most certainly have the final word. Second, what the heck are you talking about? What do execution appeals have to do with this in any way whatsoever?

taperxz
10-10-2011, 5:02 PM
If, and that's a really big IF , of course I'll apply. My ego is not too big to admit I was wrong. I do hope I'm wrong, sadly I don't think that's the case.

What county are you in?

ojisan
10-10-2011, 5:02 PM
Pessimistic, cynical ol' Ojisan's take on the day:

No ammo ban. Excellent!

Long Gun Registration does not start for 3 years...plenty of time to fight it....and perhaps Brown signed this fully knowing it will be overturned...he did write a pro-2A brief to SCOTUS, so he does understand the issues at hand...this is possibly just a political game.
(Just like Arnold did signing the last ammo ban, that he knew was going to get killed off, but he needed help on water use votes so he played the game...)

DROS Fees being turned into a tax gives us plenty of new courtroom opportunities.

UOC Ban means lots of new courtroom opportunities, too.
Don't think for a second that Brown did not know this will happen if he approved the ban.

We will see what standardization of CCW apps means, but again Brown wrote to SCOTUS that it should not be up to a patchwork of state-by-state laws that determine 2A rights and application.


Unless you are current on 2A litigation, most people (and many on other forums) don't even know on what is going on so their comments, well, let's just take them with a grain of salt.

Thanx, CGF and all those rowing the boat.

berto
10-10-2011, 5:03 PM
"Deafetist"? It sure seems like every time we look up, some judge in CA is denying our CCW rights. Ditto for the federal 9th circuit. Now we are pinning all our hopes on SCOTUS. If one of the Heller Five should (God forbid!) pass away under the current administration, guess what? I think you can figure out what will happen.

So I don't think Wild Squid is as "defeatist" as you're saying. Rather, it seems like we're always told that we are defeatist, or we just need to trust those people "in the know", etc. Well if you want us to believe, maybe you should stop with the cryptic phrases about "those in the know" and be more forthcoming.

How many people in CA have a better shot at obtaining LTC today than they did a few years ago? Sure, I'm not among them, yet, but that day is coming. Most changes we seek will take time. Some will take five of our friends in DC. Instead of playing "it's never going to happen" I prefer to push on with the fight in the belief it will happen, certainly not as soon as I want, but step by hard fought step. We can be positive and build support or we can play woe is me. I've made my choice.

And as far as being a realist, well, change will take time and it will be a struggle and there's always a chance we'll lose. Calling the game over while we're still fighting and winning is defeatist.

I know nothing more than anyone else who peruses this site and pays attention. Those "in the know" lay out what they can when it's prudent. You can believe what they say or not. You can trust them or not. You can do your own research or not. You can join the fight or not. You can surrender or not. Please join us. Hell, be a contrarian, it's useful.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 5:04 PM
What was huge? His signing of the carry license reform? Yes that was a huge help. His vetoing of the ammo bill? Yep, huge help there to. Signing the ban on open carry and eviscerating our oponents arguments in both Peruta and Richards? Huge help there to, even though its a violation of the first amendment. Long gun registration? Not really huge at all, kindof a yawn really.

Without Jerry on our side, we are F#$%^? How do you figure? We've never fought through the legislative branch, we don't have plans to fight through the legislative branch, at least that I know of. So why does it matter? Remember the last time an anti gun bill got passed? (hint: last years ammo bill) The courts took it down.

We are most certainly winning, you just see losses where there aren't any, see the minor losses as more significant than they are, and ignore the victories that are so prevalent.


We're winning? What have we won? We haven't won squat. What, you're happy with a couple of handguns off the roster? That we can build an AR? The real prize at stake here is Shall Issue CCW. That is all that truly matters, and if/when we lose that battle, which I believe we will, then we will truly be F#$%^!

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 5:05 PM
Thank you. Nice to have a few supporters of what I'm saying. If ya'll would quit drinking the Kool Aid that is being fed to you by mob mentality in here you will realize that us 2A supporters are not exactly winning the war here. See the above in bold. Putting all your eggs into the SCOTUS basket is not what I would call "winning". Jerry Brown signing the bill last night, doesn't exactly feel like "winning". Does it??? OK, yes I admit I'm bringing the doom and gloom, but it is a perspective you all need to see as a possibility. I'm also not telling anyone to roll over, I just think the ultimate prize at stake here, Shall Issue CCW, is not going to happen based on recent turn of events. Believe me, What Jerry did last night was huge, he has turned his back on us when we believed he would help our cause. And without Jerry on our side, we are F#$%^.

Woe to be you who thinks that the actions of one single politician in California will destroy any progress.

Parker/Heller: Loss in District Court, win at Circuit Court of Appeal, Win at SCOTUS

McDonald: Loss in District and Circuit Court of Appeal, win at SCOTUS.

Ezell: Loss in District Court, win in Circuit Court of Appeal, no need to appeal to SCOTUS

SCOTUS Rule 10:

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usualcourse of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;

(b)a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;

(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court

Nordyke and Ezell conflict, however it is the Nordykes who must appeal to SCOTUS as Chicago did not appeal Ezell to the SCOTUS. Right now there's a petition for en banc review in the 9th Circuit which must be disposed of first before a SCOTUS position is considered.

Every case that Alan Gura has taken before in regards to 2A has lost in the District Courts. Some arguments are made for higher courts. I am looking forward to the 10th Circuit (mountain states) coming to a different decision than the 9th (west coast). SCOTUS doesn't like two completely opposite decisions by the circuit courts on the same issue.

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 5:06 PM
If, and that's a really big IF , of course I'll apply. My ego is not too big to admit I was wrong. I do hope I'm wrong, sadly I don't think that's the case.

You man enough to take a bet?

We're winning? What have we won? We haven't won squat. What, you're happy with a couple of handguns off the roster? That we can build an AR? The real prize at stake here is Shall Issue CCW. That is all that truly matters, and if/when we lose that battle, which I believe we will, then we will truly be F#$%^!

Do not use the word "CCW". It is shall-issue LTC or license to carry. The UOC ban has basically now made it fully an LTC now.

The "concealed weapons" confusion is one of the reasons our enemies are successfully able to use it against us. You want the right to carry, not the right to CCW. Now that the state government has selected concealment as the only legal and acceptable method to carry, you must adapt the language to meet it. This is the reason Missouri was able to pass their LTC/RTC law over strong objections of the Governor there. They successfully changed the language of the debate to be about the right to carry, not about concealment.

Also, you still haven't answered me as to why SB610 will lead to a "standardization" against us. Please explain, using the facts of SB610, for your belief.

bulgron
10-10-2011, 5:07 PM
Thank you. Nice to have a few supporters of what I'm saying. If ya'll would quit drinking the Kool Aid that is being fed to you by mob mentality in here you will realize that us 2A supporters are not exactly winning the war here. See the above in bold. Putting all your eggs into the SCOTUS basket is not what I would call "winning". Jerry Brown signing the bill last night, doesn't exactly feel like "winning". Does it??? OK, yes I admit I'm bringing the doom and gloom, but it is a perspective you all need to see as a possibility. I'm also not telling anyone to roll over, I just think the ultimate prize at stake here, Shall Issue CCW, is not going to happen based on recent turn of events. Believe me, What Jerry did last night was huge, he has turned his back on us when we believed he would help our cause. And without Jerry on our side, we are F#$%^.

The problem with guys like you is that you make people want to go away and stop fighting.

The other problem with guys like you is that you can't see the damage that you're doing.

Just out of curiosity, what good do you expect to come of telling us "the world according to Wild Squid"? I mean, what's the point in coming here and spewing your negative bile?

Personally, I think some people around here are optimistic on when the average Joe in CA will be able to get a CCW, regardless of where he lives in this state. But I don't think they're being optimistic when they say that day is coming. It is going to happen, even despite "the world according to Wild Squid."

trevilli
10-10-2011, 5:08 PM
Woe to be you who thinks that the actions Every case that Alan Gura has taken before in regards to 2A has lost in the District Courts. Some arguments are made for higher courts. I am looking forward to the 10th Circuit (mountain states) coming to a different decision than the 9th (west coast). SCOTUS doesn't like two completely opposite decisions by the circuit courts on the same issue.

So tell us Gray, if one of the Heller Five had retired and was replaced by Obama, do we win Heller or MacDonald? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 5:08 PM
First of all, yes SCOTUS will most certainly have the final word. Second, what the heck are you talking about? What do execution appeals have to do with this in any way whatsoever?

My point is depending on the SCOTUS to actually hear the case. There is a good ****** chance they will not. Then there is also a good ******* chance they will find against Shall Issue CCW for CA. Then we can stick a fork in ourselves. Much like how a condemned criminal waiting to be executed feels.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE WORD FILTER ~ CHIEFCRASH

robcoe
10-10-2011, 5:10 PM
We're winning? What have we won? We haven't won squat. What, you're happy with a couple of handguns off the roster? That we can build an AR? The real prize at stake here is Shall Issue CCW. That is all that truly matters, and if/when we lose that battle, which I believe we will, then we will truly be F#$%^!

If you really think there will be no victories, no progress toward getting these things, why are you here?

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 5:12 PM
We're winning? What have we won? We haven't won squat. What, you're happy with a couple of handguns off the roster? That we can build an AR? The real prize at stake here is Shall Issue CCW. That is all that truly matters, and if/when we lose that battle, which I believe we will, then we will truly be F#$%^!

What has the gun rights community won?

Heller
Mcdonald
Ezell
OLL's
Pretty much destroying the roster
Sacramento settling and going shall issue
CGF v Ventura
DOJ admitting in writing that Bullet Buttons are a legal configuration
AB962 ruled unconstitutionally vague


As the the second part, you "believe" we will lose but have already admitted you have no actual logic behind your belief. So it doesn't make it any more true than me believing in Santa Claus.

DVSmith
10-10-2011, 5:12 PM
Also, I have more guns than you have money.


Really? Ego much? And you are wrong. :D

As for your assertion, I agree we will not have shall issue in my lifetime without some magic shift in the US Supreme Court or Congress & White House.

Nothing will happen in CA, including court ruling, that will cause shall issue. Maybe less restrictive issue, but even that I would not bet any of your guns or my money on.

But it is still worth working toward. Maybe in my kids lifetime!

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 5:15 PM
If you really think there will be no victories, no progress toward getting these things, why are you here?

I'm merely focusing on Shall Issue CCW, because I believe that to be the Holy Grail of our 2A rights here in CA. Without it, nothing else matters. And I'm here to tell people something different from what people are used to hearing at the Kool Aid punch bowl. And if I even get through to one person, which I have, I will have considered my thread a success. I would like to have others see my views too.

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 5:15 PM
My point is depending on the SCOTUS to actually hear the case. There is a good ****** chance they will not. Then there is also a good ******* chance they will find against Shall Issue CCW for CA. Then we can stick a fork in ourselves. Much like how a condemned criminal waiting to be executed feels.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE WORD FILTER ~ CHIEFCRASH

Again, as I asked before, what reason to you think the Heller SCOTUS would decide not to hear a civil carry case? It doesn't make any sense. You obviously don't pay much attention to SCOTUS, or if you do you clearly don't understand.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 5:17 PM
Me: Also, I have more guns than you have money.

Really? Ego much? And you are wrong. :D

As for your assertion, I agree we will not have shall issue in my lifetime without some magic shift in the US Supreme Court or Congress & White House.

Nothing will happen in CA, including court ruling, that will cause shall issue. Maybe less restrictive issue, but even that I would not bet any of your guns or my money on.

But it is still worth working toward. Maybe in my kids lifetime!

Just being sarcastic, we're not really going to focus on that are we?

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 5:19 PM
Again, as I asked before, what reason to you think the Heller SCOTUS would decide not to hear a civil carry case? It doesn't make any sense. You obviously don't pay much attention to SCOTUS, or if you do you clearly don't understand.

Because they don't have to if they don't want to? And even if they do can you guarantee victory? Call it just a hunch, SCOTUS may not even hear the case. Like I said, you heard it here from me first.

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 5:19 PM
My point is depending on the SCOTUS to actually hear the case. There is a good ****** chance they will not. Then there is also a good ******* chance they will find against Shall Issue CCW for CA. Then we can stick a fork in ourselves. Much like how a condemned criminal waiting to be executed feels.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE WORD FILTER ~ CHIEFCRASH

You still haven't adequetely explained the reasons for your belief that SCOTUS A) will not take a case and B) Why they would rule for a California style system, just like I'm waiting for an explanation for your "standardization against us" statement.

Where's the beef?

robcoe
10-10-2011, 5:19 PM
I'm merely focusing on Shall Issue CCW, because I believe that to be the Holy Grail of our 2A rights here in CA. Without it, nothing else matters. And I'm here to tell people something different from what people are used to hearing at the Kool Aid punch bowl. And if I even get through to one person, which I have, I will have considered my thread a success. I would like to have others see my views too.

So you're here to demoralize people so they stop fighting for reform thereby ensuring your predictions come true.

Got it, you work for the Brady Campaign.

sholling
10-10-2011, 5:20 PM
Hey sholling,

That was at least forty years ago. I will be long dead in another forty years.

markm
From Brown v Board of Education (the equivalent to Heller) to legal mixed marriage wasn't 10 years much less 40. It's been 2 years since Heller. Note that bigotry was around a lot longer than the ban on loaded open carry has been and LOC was perfectly legal when I was growing up. Armed protestors intimidating the public and causing LE problems brought loaded open carry to an end just like it brought unloaded open carry to an end. I suspect that we'll have shall issue LTC in California in 2 years at least I hope so. If we haven't in 5 then I'll probably give up and move.

missiondude
10-10-2011, 5:21 PM
I'm merely focusing on Shall Issue CCW, because I believe that to be the Holy Grail of our 2A rights here in CA. Without it, nothing else matters. And I'm here to tell people something different from what people are used to hearing at the Kool Aid punch bowl. And if I even get through to one person, which I have, I will have considered my thread a success. I would like to have others see my views too.

I think you got through to at least one person here. Your thread is a success, what did you win?

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 5:21 PM
What has the gun rights community won?

Heller
Mcdonald
Ezell
OLL's
Pretty much destroying the roster
Sacramento settling and going shall issue
CGF v Ventura
DOJ admitting in writing that Bullet Buttons are a legal configuration
AB962 ruled unconstitutionally vague


As the the second part, you "believe" we will lose but have already admitted you have no actual logic behind your belief. So it doesn't make it any more true than me believing in Santa Claus.


I care nothing about any of that. I can draw a longer list of what we have lost. The point is, Shall Issue CCW or bust.

trevilli
10-10-2011, 5:21 PM
I'm merely focusing on Shall Issue CCW, because I believe that to be the Holy Grail of our 2A rights here in CA. Without it, nothing else matters. And I'm here to tell people something different from what people are used to hearing at the Kool Aid punch bowl. And if I even get through to one person, which I have, I will have considered my thread a success. I would like to have others see my views too.
I think it ultimately will depend on SCOTUS. It is clear that CA judges, including the 9th, do not accept the arguments that have been made for our side in the carry cases. I think it's also clear that the legislature will never pass "shall issue" legislation here either. SCOTUS could very well rule that the right to carry a concealed weapon is a fundamental civil right. They have not done so yet, and since the recent gun cases have been decided 5-4, if one of those justices is replaced, we could very easily lose. I don't think people here acknowledge how slight of a margin that is. I certainly don't think it calls for unbridled optimism to the point that we cannot clearly see reality.

markm
10-10-2011, 5:24 PM
My point is depending on the SCOTUS to actually hear the case. There is a good ****** chance they will not. Then there is also a good ******* chance they will find against Shall Issue CCW for CA. Then we can stick a fork in ourselves. Much like how a condemned criminal waiting to be executed feels.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE WORD FILTER ~ CHIEFCRASH

And, there is a good **** chance that one of the strict constructionist SCOTUS judges will die and Obama will appoint another liberal associate justice to SCOTUS. One more Sotomeyor or Kagan justice is all we need, to lose it all.

markm

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE WORD FILTER ~ CHIEFCRASH

RollingCode3
10-10-2011, 5:25 PM
I care nothing about any of that. I can draw a longer list of what we have lost. The point is, Shall Issue CCW or bust.

:facepalm:

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 5:26 PM
Because they don't have to if they don't want to? And even if they do can you guarantee victory? Call it just a hunch, SCOTUS may not even hear the case. Like I said, you heard it here from me first.

And I heard it from the homeless schizophrenic on the corner first that the world was ending last month and I'd be judged by the almighty. Saying things don't make them true. Thinking things don't make them more likely to occur.

The truth is, the decision in Heller went out of its way to allude to Muscarello in mentioning the meaning of bear. "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."

So if the court found "bear" to be worth noting in a "keep" case a a logical person would conclude there was something to that.

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 5:28 PM
I care nothing about any of that. I can draw a longer list of what we have lost. The point is, Shall Issue CCW or bust.

Notice one item on that list WAS shall issue carry licenses. Sacramento is there specifically because of CGF legal action. That is a WIN on the shall issue front.

berto
10-10-2011, 5:31 PM
I think it ultimately will depend on SCOTUS. It is clear that CA judges, including the 9th, do not accept the arguments that have been made for our side in the carry cases. I think it's also clear that the legislature will never pass "shall issue" legislation here either. SCOTUS could very well rule that the right to carry a concealed weapon is a fundamental civil right. They have not done so yet, and since the recent gun cases have been decided 5-4, if one of those justices is replaced, we could very easily lose. I don't think people here acknowledge how slight of a margin that is. I certainly don't think it calls for unbridled optimism to the point that we cannot clearly see reality.

Most here are well aware of the razor thin 5-4 margin and the potential consequences of losing one of our five friends. Hence the post-Heller message in '08 and beyond that elections matter as the President appoints justices and that holding one's nose in November may be more appropriate than going third way given the fallout that may result from a windmill tilt that makes one feel good but nets the biggest evil. Those "in the know" have acknowledged, repeatedly, that our best shot is litigation. If Squid and folks like him aren't even willing to give litigation a shot they ought to pack it in and some apparently have. We could lose. We could also win. Why not fight?

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 5:36 PM
I'm merely focusing on Shall Issue CCW, because I believe that to be the Holy Grail of our 2A rights here in CA. Without it, nothing else matters. And I'm here to tell people something different from what people are used to hearing at the Kool Aid punch bowl. And if I even get through to one person, which I have, I will have considered my thread a success. I would like to have others see my views too.

The difference here with us, you need to back up your views with facts other than self declared ones. All you're doing is discouraging volunteerism.

You're in the Bay Area. Numerous friends of mine are in the bay area. Here is what I am a part of.

Because of my volunteer efforts, San Mateo county residents were able to get a carry license with good cause that is just slightly higher than self defense.
Numerous people in El Dorado County are now reaping the reward of electing a sheriff who I and others here have wholeheartedly used our first amendment rights to endorse for being good for carry (John D'Agostini).
We helped defeated Sheriff Rod Mitchell of Lake County, who had unlawful residency and citizenship requirements. The new sheriff (Rivero) is tremendously better and stated specifically that he would accept self defense, and no more unlawful requirements.
Because of combined effort of numerous volunteers both inside and outside of the county, residents of Sacramento County now live in a "self defense" jurisdiction. 1.4 million freed.
Because of the combined effort of volunteerism, Monterey County now accepts self defense for good cause
Because of the combined effort of volunteerism from CGN, CGF, and the Madison Society, Stanislaus County now accepts self defense as good cause
This doesn't include the numerous other small victories of changing policies which are under the radar and have the net effect of making it easier for people to apply.

So, can I ask: What have you volunteered to do lately?

taperxz
10-10-2011, 5:36 PM
I find it interesting that the fail with the OP is strong. SCOTUS has already given us the right to bear arms. CA who has taken away UOC must now decide via the courts the proper ability to carry. CA courts now have two alternatives LTC or LOC. There is no, no carry.

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 5:39 PM
And, there is a good **** chance that one of the strict constructionist SCOTUS judges will die and Obama will appoint another liberal associate justice to SCOTUS. One more Sotomeyor or Kagan justice is all we need, to lose it all.

markm

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE WORD FILTER ~ CHIEFCRASH

See Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Also, lucky for us the President cannot unilaterally appoint SCOTUS justices.....

trevilli
10-10-2011, 5:43 PM
The difference here with us, you need to back up your views with facts other than self declared ones. All you're doing is discouraging volunteerism.

You're in the Bay Area. Numerous friends of mine are in the bay area. Here is what I am a part of.
[LIST]
Because of my volunteer efforts, San Mateo county residents were able to get a carry license with good cause that is just slightly higher than self defense.

That's a very subjective term, I live in San Mateo county. It was my understanding that you had to be carrying cash or something similar. What is "slightly" higher than self-defense?

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 5:48 PM
lol. He remembers!

:D

Yes of course I do.

Wild Squid, let's make this a friendly wager. You're convinced carry will not happen and I believe just as strongly it will. Steak dinner or donation to a foundation (CGF or CRPAF). Choose.

Gray Peterson
10-10-2011, 5:50 PM
That's a very subjective term, I live in San Mateo county. It was my understanding that you had to be carrying cash or something similar. What is "slightly" higher than self-defense?

You'll see when the good cause data is posted for San Mateo.

chiefcrash
10-10-2011, 5:51 PM
I care nothing about any of that. I can draw a longer list of what we have lost. The point is, Shall Issue CCW or bust.

And how exactly do you go about getting that "Shall Issue CCW or bust"? Might it be through small, incremental victories?

The same sort of small, incremental victories (for the other side) that is currently the source of your complaint?

And as someone already pointed out, notice how some of that list DIRECTLY influences that "Shall Issue or Bust" thing you claim is the only thing you care about? You can't say you care only about getting shall-issue, then say you don't care when we list the steps we've taken to getting the one thing you supposedly care about...

You say we're drinking the Kool-Aid, but I see a pattern: you make a statement, we refute it with facts, and you declare it somehow doesn't matter without explanation. Perhaps we're drinking Kool-Aid over here, I'll concede that. But then, it appears you're drinking your own flavor of Kool-Aid as well. You just switched flavors is all...

taperxz
10-10-2011, 5:53 PM
I'd go for House of Prime ;)

dad
10-10-2011, 6:00 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

Giving up is the biggest mistake you can make!

sandman21
10-10-2011, 6:16 PM
Notice one item on that list WAS shall issue carry licenses. Sacramento is there specifically because of CGF legal action. That is a WIN on the shall issue front.

Near shall issue.

I find it interesting that the fail with the OP is strong. SCOTUS has already given us the right to bear arms. CA who has taken away UOC must now decide via the courts the proper ability to carry. CA courts now have two alternatives LTC or LOC. There is no, no carry.

You can still UOC a rifle or LUCC, the SCOTUS passed on a state that issues less than CA, you the lower court is going to see the error of there ways and give us shall issue next week? :facepalm:

CapS
10-10-2011, 6:22 PM
I care nothing about any of that. I can draw a longer list of what we have lost. The point is, Shall Issue CCW or bust.

I'm curious as to what your purpose is here. I know you want your point of
view heard and yourself hailed as a visionary, but are you really trying to
discourage us from doing what we believe is right? If so, why?

Cap

stix213
10-10-2011, 6:30 PM
The problem with guys like you is that you make people want to go away and stop fighting.


That's his goal. He just likes the feeling when he is "right," and is trying to sabotage the movement to minimize risk he can ever be proven wrong.


The other problem with guys like you is that you can't see the damage that you're doing.


No, he sees the damage. Its on purpose, and purely out of selfish ego.

He doesn't have any facts at all, and doesn't try to back anything up, because that's not even the point. I'm not sure he even believes what he is saying, because if he did he wouldn't need to convince anyone else of it because its inevitable right? No this is all because he wants to do whatever he can to slow us down, all so he can say "I told you so." He'd rather us lose our 2A rights completely than find out his predictions are wrong. He's that insecure.

TTT
10-10-2011, 6:30 PM
CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it.

Don’t be like this- you’re spoiling all the back-patting and graveyard-whistling here at Calguns.

Caladain
10-10-2011, 6:32 PM
I'm curious as to what your purpose is here. I know you want your point of
view heard and yourself hailed as a visionary, but are you really trying to
discourage us from doing what we believe is right? If so, why?

Cap

There are several anti's on the board today trying to sap morale and "make us give up".

Because they know if we keep going forward like we currently are, they loose.

I'm also starting to believe they've a few members "provoking" the UOC from within to do something stupid.

Remember that we lost the first round of guncontrol because we were a fractured front..the shotgun guys, the cowboy guys, the hunters, the black rifle folk...as soon as the law was tweaked *just so* the group could "have theirs"...well, **** every other group, *I got mine*.

Those wounds haven't healed..and i think we're going to let the grudges die hard, long deaths a hundred years from now...if ever.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 6:33 PM
Near shall issue.



You can still UOC a rifle or LUCC, the SCOTUS passed on a state that issues less than CA, you the lower court is going to see the error of there ways and give us shall issue next week? :facepalm:

Pretty much when Richards is heard. and don't forget Masciandaro It should also be mentioned that all these cases involve hand guns and not rifles.

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 6:39 PM
So tell us Gray, if one of the Heller Five had retired and was replaced by Obama, do we win Heller or MacDonald? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

We already won Heller and McDonald. Can't put those genies back in the bottle.

If my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle. Next?

-Brandon

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 6:41 PM
I don't know why you guys are so excited about shall issue. I live in a shall issue area and nobody around here can get a CCW, not even retired police officers or vets.

otteray
10-10-2011, 6:43 PM
You know, I've made the same point on other forums I'm a part of, and the majority of people who have replied to me elsewhere seem to agree with me, whereas here in this forum I'm being treated like cancer. What do suppose that says about you all? Living in a fantasy world perhaps?

The people that got the bill passed to ban UOC, do you really think they were stupid to not consider that this would open the gates to let Shall Issue CCW through? No no no. They knew it alright. They considered it. And you know what they found? That Shall Issue CCW doesn't have a chance. You know why ? Because the people of CA don't want it. Yea I don't like this fact as much as any of you, but it is fact. Well, some of you mention SCOTUS? What if SCOTUS never hears the case? I don't even think they'll listen to it. And if they turn down the case what will you do then my little smurfs? Hmm??? And what if say it does make it to SCOTUS and they find in favor AGAINST CCW? HMM??? The recent addition of Sotomayor to one of the seats doesn't help does it?? HMM?

Jeez, you are starting to squawk like a henpecking wife.... I can't stand it.
Chill with your ranting. I'm going to go to leave and go to the garage/workshop/bar/poolhall/pub...(etc...)

taperxz
10-10-2011, 6:45 PM
I don't know why you guys are so excited about shall issue. I live in a shall issue area and nobody around here can get a CCW, not even retired police officers or vets.


Your post is confusing. Is it because you forgot to apply to a shall issue authority? Shall issue means apply and you will get one.

trevilli
10-10-2011, 6:46 PM
We already won Heller and McDonald. Can't put those genies back in the bottle.

If my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle. Next?

-Brandon

Next? Like if one of the justices retire before the carry cases makes it to SCOTUS, then what? SCOTUS doesn't decide based on merit. It decides based on politics. And while the court won't go back and re-visit a previous ruling, it can issue a new ruling that seeks to amplify or clarify a previous ruling. See how Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v Ferguson, the genitalia of your relatives notwithstanding.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 6:47 PM
Oh wait, nevermind, I think we're may issue. My mistake. :)

sandman21
10-10-2011, 6:47 PM
Pretty much when Richards is heard. and don't forget Masciandaro It should also be mentioned that all these cases involve hand guns and not rifles.

....Based upon this, Heller cannot be read to invalidate
Yolo County’s concealed weapon policy, as the Second Amendment does
not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in
public............
....Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a
concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo
County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon
nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in
circumstances that may occur in a public setting. Yolo County’s
policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and
keep arms. Therefore, rational basis review applies....... (http://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.72.0.pdf)

Richards says weapon nothing about it not being locked, or on your person, or a pistol.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 6:51 PM
....Based upon this, Heller cannot be read to invalidate
Yolo County’s concealed weapon policy, as the Second Amendment does
not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in
public............
....Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a
concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo
County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon
nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in
circumstances that may occur in a public setting. Yolo County’s
policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and
keep arms. Therefore, rational basis review applies....... (http://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.72.0.pdf)

Richards says weapon nothing about it not being locked, or on your person, or a pistol.

Their (Yolo) argument, was based on the ability to UOC. They were granted a postponement based on the outcome of AB 144. They will now have to come up with a new reason.

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 6:52 PM
Squid,

I've resisted but I have to do it. Are you old enough to qualify for a permit?

All I know for sure is that I have both more guns, more money, and more licenses to carry than you do.

For you SCOTUS whiners. 1. My dog polls higher than Obama in the next election. 2. Why would any of the Heller 5 allow themselves to be replaced under a D executive?

Amateur hour in this thread.

-Gene

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 6:55 PM
I don't know why you guys are so excited about shall issue. I live in a shall issue area and nobody around here can get a CCW, not even retired police officers or vets.

If you can't get one as a law-abiding resident, it's not shall issue.

-Brandon

sandman21
10-10-2011, 6:55 PM
Their (Yolo) argument, was based on the ability to UOC. They were granted a postponement based on the outcome of AB 144. They will now have to come up with a new reason.

You can still UOC, what I posted is from Judge England judgment, that's what is being appealed. It will not get us LTC any faster.

Scratch705
10-10-2011, 6:56 PM
I'm with u OP.

the idiots outnumber the sane in this state and that will never change.

trevilli
10-10-2011, 6:57 PM
Squid,

I've resisted but I have to do it. Are you old enough to qualify for a permit?

All I know for sure is that I have both more guns, more money, and more licenses to carry than you do.

For you SCOTUS whiners. 1. My dog polls higher than Obama in the next election. 2. Why would any of the Heller 5 allow themselves to be replaced under a D executive?

Amateur hour in this thread.

-Gene
Regarding 1, the election is still a long way off, have you seen the Republican field? You should let your dog run, I might vote for him/her before I'd vote for Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or Herman Cain.

Regarding 2, and I hate to mention it, but what the heck, I'm not superstitious...generally we don't get to choose the day or the hour when we die. I think that includes SCOTUS justices.

I appreciate being called a whiner and an amateur though, many thanks.

HUTCH 7.62
10-10-2011, 7:00 PM
Meh you're probably right, CA will probably give illegal immigrants the right to CCW before we will.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 7:00 PM
You can still UOC, what I posted is from Judge England judgment, that's what is being appealed. It will not get us LTC any faster.

Am i missing something here? UOC is now gone as of 1/1/12. Yolo who does not want to issue, is claiming UOC is available for the plaintiff as a means of legal carry. It no longer will be. Doesn't that put a big hole in Yolo's case?

taperxz
10-10-2011, 7:01 PM
Wow here come the trolls. I'm outta this thread.

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 7:04 PM
I appreciate being called a whiner and an amateur though, many thanks.

You're welcome!

-Gene

mosinnagantm9130
10-10-2011, 7:04 PM
Jeez the fail is strong in this thread. :facepalm:

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 7:10 PM
Wow here come the trolls. I'm outta this thread.

The point isn't really to argue with the trolls because we think we can convince them they're wrong. The point is that when doom and gloom scenarios are presented, and completely asinine statements are made they need to be refuted for the sake of others reading them. People can make their own decisions of whether to believe the doom and gloomers or believe the more reasoned approach.

sandman21
10-10-2011, 7:10 PM
Am i missing something here? UOC is now gone as of 1/1/12. Yolo who does not want to issue, is claiming UOC is available for the plaintiff as a means of legal carry. It no longer will be. Doesn't that put a big hole in Yolo's case?

You can still UOC a rifle, you can also LUCC. These two options might satisfy our right to bear arms.

even if Plaintiffs are denied a
concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo
County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon
nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in
circumstances that may occur in a public setting.

Nothing about open, concealed, locked, pistol, rifle, on your person, in the judgment. So it's not a slam dunk get a LTC next week deal. It will not move up the timeline for having a LTC in CA.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 7:16 PM
You can still UOC a rifle, you can also LUCC. These two options might satisfy our right to bear arms.



Nothing about open, concealed, locked, pistol, rifle, in the judgment. So it's not a slam dunk get a LTC next week deal. It will not move up the timeline for having a LTC in CA.

Rifles have NOTHING to do with your argument. They are not concealable and have no place in a "hand gun carry" argument. LUCC is only a form of transportation required because of prohibited areas like school zones. UOC WAS fine in an automobile as long as you were not in a school zone.

A rifle must also be locked in a school zone FWIW. Your argument that says these methods of carry are OK would only be good if you were not within a 1000 ft. of a school zone. LTC can be done anywhere near a school or even on a school. Thus you are not able to protect yourself in these areas with YOUR idea of carry.

sandman21
10-10-2011, 7:36 PM
Rifles have NOTHING to do with your argument. They are not concealable and have no place in a "hand gun carry" argument. LUCC is only a form of transportation required because of prohibited areas like school zones. UOC WAS fine in an automobile as long as you were not in a school zone.
A rifle must also be locked in a school zone FWIW. Your argument that says these methods of carry are OK would only be good if you were not within a 1000 ft. of a school zone. LTC can be done anywhere near a school or even on a school. Thus you are not able to protect yourself in these areas with YOUR idea of carry.
I am sorry could you tell me what my argument is, I thought I was saying that banning UOC of handguns will not give us LTC any faster, because the court can point to the fact you can still UOC a rifle or LUCC a handgun. When I go back and read my posts.......yep that's what they say.

There is nothing in the Richards opinion that says that a handgun is the only means to satisfy the 2A, per Richards;
The appropriate inquiry here, under a substantial burden analysis, is whether Yolo County’s restrictions leave Plaintiffs with “reasonable alternative means” to obtain and keep a firearm “sufficient for self-defense purposes.”

Nothing about a handgun being the "firearm" protected under the 2A for self-defense. You can UOC a rifle, who cares if it's concealable, or you can carry a handgun LUCC. I have given you two reasonable alternative means to obtain and keep a firearm sufficient for self-defense purposes. Banning UOC of handguns has changed nothing in Richards.
CA does not require you to lock a rifle in a school zone.

You clearly have no idea what method of carry I want. :facepalm:

Bruce
10-10-2011, 7:37 PM
I read the OP and three words came to mind: "Hello Billy Jack". :rolleyes:
Methinks BJ is trying to stir the pot under a pseudonym.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 7:48 PM
I am sorry could you tell me what my argument is, I thought I was saying that banning UOC of handguns will not give us LTC any faster, because the court can point to the fact you can still UOC a rifle or LUCC a handgun. When I go back and read my posts.......yep that's what they say.

There is nothing in the Richards opinion that says that a handgun is the only means to satisfy the 2A, per Richards;


Nothing about a handgun being the "firearm" protected under the 2A for self-defense. You can UOC a rifle, who cares if it's concealable, or you can carry a handgun LUCC. I have given you two reasonable alternative means to obtain and keep a firearm sufficient for self-defense purposes. Banning UOC of handguns has changed nothing in Richards.
CA does not require you to lock a rifle in a school zone.

You clearly have no idea what method of carry I want. :facepalm:

Richards is a hand gun carry case. It only pertains to ones ability to carry a hand gun. NOT AN UNCONCEALABLE firearm. LUCC does not cut it! It is in fact not a readily available functional firearm. In fact it is so inaccessible that even the 4A protects it from being available to view. Both cases in Heller and McDonald were exclusively about a handgun and its practical use for self defense. Richards will follow this protocol. There is no way in heck the DA in Yolo is going to remind people that they can carry rifles unloaded in lieu of AB144. You may not carry a rifle unlocked near a school FEDERAL LAW.

RivCoFireman
10-10-2011, 8:09 PM
So tell us Gray, if one of the Heller Five had retired and was replaced by Obama, do we win Heller or MacDonald? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

So what if there was no 2nd amendment, what if our forefathers hadn't fled Europe in hopes of starting anew? You can "What if" this to death, the fact is we did win Heller, we did win McDonald, we can get AR's/AK's, we can still get ammo online, LTC is going get cleaned up county by county. Quit your whining, please.

rero360
10-10-2011, 8:20 PM
Squid,

I've resisted but I have to do it. Are you old enough to qualify for a permit?

All I know for sure is that I have both more guns, more money, and more licenses to carry than you do.

-Gene

But I got one state that you don't :D :tt2:

But yeah, way too much negativity on here the past few days, everyone just take a step back, breath deeply and have a beer or two, the world is not going to end.

Lone_Gunman
10-10-2011, 8:28 PM
3 things.

1. This thread is stupid.
2. Thanks to the CGF I've had my Sac County CCW for almost a year now.
3. I'm sure 2 years ago the OP would have said I was never going to get a Sac County CCW with "self defense" as my good cause, he would have been wrong about that too.

stix213
10-10-2011, 8:40 PM
For you SCOTUS whiners. 1. My dog polls higher than Obama in the next election. 2. Why would any of the Heller 5 allow themselves to be replaced under a D executive?


I've mentioned this before, but the biggest threat to the 2A in this state and country right now is a heart attack. Not anything Brown can or cannot do, the ATF, or Obama.

Donk310
10-10-2011, 8:44 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

You are absolutely right my friend.

1859sharps
10-10-2011, 8:50 PM
For you SCOTUS whiners. 1. My dog polls higher than Obama in the next election.

Weren't you just recently accused of not having a sense of humor?

I don't care you are, that's funny right there.

russ69
10-10-2011, 8:51 PM
Disclaimer:..Also, I have more guns than you have money...

You have seriously under estimated my net worth or you have a house full of guns, literally a house full.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 8:54 PM
There is no, no carry.

Don't speak too soon. That's exactly what I'm getting at^^
SCOTUS might agree with CA there's no need for any kind of carry at all, regardless of the Heller 5. One of them may be swayed the other way and then I will be made the prophet.

Anti-Hero
10-10-2011, 8:54 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

http://stickerwerkz.com/shop/48-90-large/cool-story-bro-sticker.jpg

Cali-Shooter
10-10-2011, 9:04 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=486457

Don't tell me you are a battered gun owner. Giving up is for the weak. Just because you've given up on the fight to reclaim RTKBA doesn't mean the rest of us will follow suit. No effing way man.

Kooter
10-10-2011, 9:08 PM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.


I wish there were more people with your passion supporting 2A rights.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

Also, I have more guns than you have money.

Another guy with a bigger penis than me!? Say it ain't so!

Connor P Price
10-10-2011, 9:09 PM
3 things.

1. This thread is stupid.
2. Thanks to the CGF I've had my Sac County CCW for almost a year now.
3. I'm sure 2 years ago the OP would have said I was never going to get a Sac County CCW with "self defense" as my good cause, he would have been wrong about that too.

3 things.
1. I lol'd
2. WINNING!
3. OP pwned

/thread

skyscraper
10-10-2011, 9:10 PM
The thread was over when you said you had given up already. I feel bad that you are that type of person. Oh well, plenty of us still fighting the good fight.

vincewarde
10-10-2011, 9:12 PM
I agree that a UOC won't help get us shall issue.......

Lots of people on both sides of this issue think it will do just that, based on two court rulings - not to mention that the Supreme Court wants to rule on the "Bear" half of the 2nd amendment. The real battle on California CCW is going to remain in the courts.

Midian
10-10-2011, 9:14 PM
CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it.

People didn't want their goddamned DMV tax tripled but that sure as hell happened.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 9:20 PM
3 things.

1. This thread is stupid.
2. Thanks to the CGF I've had my Sac County CCW for almost a year now.
3. I'm sure 2 years ago the OP would have said I was never going to get a Sac County CCW with "self defense" as my good cause, he would have been wrong about that too.


CGF did not get you your CCW. Your county just happened to elect a CCW friendly sheriff. You lucked out.

trevilli
10-10-2011, 9:21 PM
So what if there was no 2nd amendment, what if our forefathers hadn't fled Europe in hopes of starting anew? You can "What if" this to death, the fact is we did win Heller, we did win McDonald, we can get AR's/AK's, we can still get ammo online, LTC is going get cleaned up county by county. Quit your whining, please.
The point is that the margin of 5-4 is razor thin. Pinning all of your hopes on SCOTUS is dangerous. If one of the Heller 5 retires or dies while Obama is President, do you think the next 2A case will be decided in our favor? How is pointing that out 'whining'?

taperxz
10-10-2011, 9:24 PM
Don't speak too soon. That's exactly what I'm getting at^^
SCOTUS might agree with CA there's no need for any kind of carry at all, regardless of the Heller 5. One of them may be swayed the other way and then I will be made the prophet.


For someone who has been here for a while it is quite obvious you spend 99% of your time in OT.

Your ideas are wildly ignorant, contain no logical thought what so ever, and epitomize that of a true anti gun rights activist.

EVERYTHING you talk about starts with "might happen" For all you know i "might happen" to be Governor Jerry Brown. I just might be telling you that i passed and vetoed these laws for a good purpose and that i am in fact 100% behind the 2A.

Hey, I might be. Are you going to doubt me?:facepalm:

I hope you understand the analogy here. It may be to much for you to consume though as it might or might not be true.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 9:25 PM
Squid,

I've resisted but I have to do it. Are you old enough to qualify for a permit?

All I know for sure is that I have both more guns, more money, and more licenses to carry than you do.

For you SCOTUS whiners. 1. My dog polls higher than Obama in the next election. 2. Why would any of the Heller 5 allow themselves to be replaced under a D executive?

Amateur hour in this thread.

-Gene


And I have resisted as well. CGF is probably a ponzi scheme for all we know. A fool and his money are easily parted. Yea you may have more more money thus more guns, and its all donated by these poor saps isn't it?

taperxz
10-10-2011, 9:28 PM
The point is that the margin of 5-4 is razor thin. Pinning all of your hopes on SCOTUS is dangerous. If one of the Heller 5 retires or dies while Obama is President, do you think the next 2A case will be decided in our favor? How is pointing that out 'whining'?

But its not, life is razor thin in all aspects. Your are dwelling on a wildly stupid fantasy that has not happened and decided to create an argument for arguments sake. The same can be said in regards to justices if Obama loses and then one of the liberal justices dies. It just hasn't happened. Your entire argument is based on pure speculation and fantasy.

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 9:29 PM
CGF did not get you your CCW. Your county just happened to elect a CCW friendly sheriff. You lucked out.

LOL. You know the guy who won Heller and McDonald? You may have heard of him? Goes by the name Alan Gura. He negotiated the current Sacramento carry license policy with the former sheriff who instigated it before the election. Actual evidence here: http://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.42.1.pdf

Fact challenged amateurs for the win!

-Gene

taperxz
10-10-2011, 9:30 PM
And I have resisted as well. CGF is probably a ponzi scheme for all we know. A fool and his money are easily parted. Yea you may have more more money thus more guns, and its all donated by these poor saps isn't it?
Are you accusing another person of embezzlement?

trevilli
10-10-2011, 9:32 PM
But its not, life is razor thin in all aspects. Your are dwelling on a wildly stupid fantasy that has not happened and decided to create an argument for arguments sake. The same can be said in regards to justices if Obama loses and then one of the liberal justices dies. It just hasn't happened. Your entire argument is based on pure speculation and fantasy.

One of the justices possibly dying before the election of 2012 is "wildly stupid"?
OK. The difference is, if Obama loses or a liberal justice dies, my 2A rights aren't threatened, but I guess you don't see it that way. That's fine, I see no benefit in characterizing your argument as a "wildly stupid fantasy" because i disagree with it.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 9:32 PM
CGF did not get you your CCW. Your county just happened to elect a CCW friendly sheriff. You lucked out.

More ignorant statements.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 9:33 PM
For someone who has been here for a while it is quite obvious you spend 99% of your time in OT.

Your ideas are wildly ignorant, contain no logical thought what so ever, and epitomize that of a true anti gun rights activist.

EVERYTHING you talk about starts with "might happen" For all you know i "might happen" to be Governor Jerry Brown. I just might be telling you that i passed and vetoed these laws for a good purpose and that i am in fact 100% behind the 2A.

Hey, I might be. Are you going to doubt me?:facepalm:

I hope you understand the analogy here. It may be to much for you to consume though as it might or might not be true.

It appears you disagree with everything I've said. Hey, that's ok. You have every right to. But we shall see who is right once the fate of Shall Issue CCW is decided once and for all. If I am wrong, I will issue a bold apology to everyone here. However, if I am right......
Perhaps I should have asked people to keep an open mind on my points. One main point is it appears most of you are pining your hopes on SCOTUS like I thought you would. Think about it for a clear second, can you guarantee the case will go in front of SCOTUS? Do you not believe they have a a right to reject hearing this case at all? And even if they do hear the case, can you guarantee the Heller 5 won't become the Heller 4 and we lose? Do you really think Jerry Brown has our back and signed the bill last night assuming he was helping the 2A cause?

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 9:34 PM
But I got one state that you don't :D :tt2:


Careful, I even have New Hampshire. With that out of the way I'm curious about which one you have that I don't! :D

-Gene

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 9:36 PM
More ignorant statements.


Taperx, you seem to have a "Got Mine" attitude. I'm assuming you have your CCW? Does that make you feel you think you know more about the future status of CCW for the entire state than me? It is people like that are not helping the cause. Don't give people false hope. Perhaps one day if the standardization process for applying for CCW is uniform across the state you will lose yours, and you'll be back in the same big boat as me. We'll see if you change your tone then.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 9:39 PM
Taperx, you seem to have a "Got Mine" attitude. I'm assuming you have your CCW? Does that make you feel you think you know more about the future status of CCW for the entire state than me? It is people like that are not helping the cause. Don't give people false hope. Perhaps one day if the standardization process for applying for CCW is uniform across the state you will lose yours, and you'll be back in the same big boat as me. We'll see if you change your tone then.

I know one thing, CGF has increased the amount of counties that issue. I think the score was 20 non issue counties to 38 shall issue counties. WITH MORE TO FALL. You seem to refuse telling us what county you are in, WHY? Your county could be falling next.

Lone_Gunman
10-10-2011, 9:40 PM
CGF did not get you your CCW. Your county just happened to elect a CCW friendly sheriff. You lucked out.

Um no. You're wrong and furthermore you are making yourself look like an idiot. I applied before Scott Jones was elected, but after Sykes v. Mcguiness (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness#Richards_v._Prieto_.28formerly_ Sykes_v._McGinness.29) was SETTLED BY MCGUINESS AND SAC COUNTY STARTED ISSUING WITH SELF DEFENSE AS GOOD CAUSE AS PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT.
In fact my license to carry was issued 12/03/10. 11 days before Jones was sworn in.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=118006&stc=1&d=1318307972

FreshTapCoke
10-10-2011, 9:40 PM
I'm old enough to remember when people said the same thing about integrated schools and integrated neighborhoods, and mixed marriages.

With age often comes wisdom. =D
(I wish you could package it and hand it out to some people...)

berto
10-10-2011, 9:41 PM
And I have resisted as well. CGF is probably a ponzi scheme for all we know. A fool and his money are easily parted. Yea you may have more more money thus more guns, and its all donated by these poor saps isn't it?

Wow. Keep digging it deeper.

Anti-Hero
10-10-2011, 9:41 PM
Taperx, you seem to have a "Got Mine" attitude. I'm assuming you have your CCW? Does that make you feel you think you know more about the future status of CCW for the entire state than me? It is people like that are not helping the cause. Don't give people false hope. Perhaps one day if the standardization process for applying for CCW is uniform across the state you will lose yours, and you'll be back in the same big boat as me. We'll see if you change your tone then.

http://www.almostsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/hurt-feelings-crying.jpg

taperxz
10-10-2011, 9:43 PM
For the record, i have not received my LTC yet. I LOC at will around my place and due to work and other things in life i have not had time to follow up with the sheriff, who has happened to encourage me personally to come in and get it done.

Wild Squid
10-10-2011, 9:45 PM
I'm curious as to what your purpose is here. I know you want your point of
view heard and yourself hailed as a visionary, but are you really trying to
discourage us from doing what we believe is right? If so, why?

Cap


No, you guys can keep on fighting the good fight. I just feel from here on out it is a losing battle in CA. And I feel the optimism from so many board members here is just absolutely ridiculous and its time someone gives them a different perspective on how things are really going. Things are not going that great. Yea I know CA has had many setbacks, and last nights action from Jerry Brown was a huge blow to all 2A supporters. It was disastrous. But the people who run Calguns Foundation don't want you to think that because they want the donations to keep rolling in.

sandman21
10-10-2011, 9:46 PM
Richards is a hand gun carry case. It only pertains to ones ability to carry a hand gun. NOT AN UNCONCEALABLE firearm. LUCC does not cut it! It is in fact not a readily available functional firearm. In fact it is so inaccessible that even the 4A protects it from being available to view. Both cases in Heller and McDonald were exclusively about a handgun and its practical use for self defense. Richards will follow this protocol. There is no way in heck the DA in Yolo is going to remind people that they can carry rifles unloaded in lieu of AB144. You may not carry a rifle unlocked near a school FEDERAL LAW.
Richards is a 2A carry case, the states preferred method of carry is a concealed handgun, that does not mean it's the only means to satisfy 2A rights, it does not matter that a rifle is not concealable, it only matters if the carrying of a UOC rifle also satisfies the 2A. Go read the summary judgment. UOC of a handgun is not a readily available functional firearm, so what? Did that change the court's opinion in Richards? Nope.
Yeah go tell a LEO you have a firearm in the case, see how protected the case is then
Heller and McDonald are not exclusively about handguns, if Richards was following the protocol in Heller and McDonald the summary judgment would have gone our way, but it didn't, so up the latter it goes.
UOC of a handgun before AB144 was required to be locked and that satisfied the 2A. Why would locking a rifle suddenly make a difference?

Lone_Gunman
10-10-2011, 9:47 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=307543

My CCW process started 6/2/10. Look at post 17. In fact, do yourself a favor and read all 1800+ posts before saying anything else stupid.

Anti-Hero
10-10-2011, 9:52 PM
Why are you allowing yourselves to be trolled by this clown? lol

taperxz
10-10-2011, 9:53 PM
Richards is a 2A carry case, the states preferred method of carry is a concealed handgun, that does not mean it's the only means to satisfy 2A rights, it does not matter that a rifle is not concealable, it only matters if the carrying of a UOC rifle also satisfies the 2A. Go read the summary judgment. UOC of a handgun is not a readily available functional firearm, so what? Did that change the court's opinion in Richards? Nope.
Yeah go tell a LEO you have a firearm in the case, see how protected the case is then
Heller and McDonald are not exclusively about handguns, if Richards was following the protocol in Heller and McDonald the summary judgment would have gone our way, but it didn't, so up the latter it goes.
UOC of a handgun before AB144 was required to be locked and that satisfied the 2A. Why would locking a rifle suddenly make a difference?

What are you talking about?? UNLOADED OPEN CARRY, locked??????????

Unloaded open carry is UNLOCKED! No has said a functional locked firearm passes muster for a 2A right!! In fact thats exactly what SCOTUS said was NOT functional. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Cali-Shooter
10-10-2011, 9:56 PM
And I have resisted as well. CGF is probably a ponzi scheme for all we know. A fool and his money are easily parted. Yea you may have more more money thus more guns, and its all donated by these poor saps isn't it?

:popcorn:

And you are still posting here why? Why don't you just get your "last laugh" in and go away so that we can get some real work done? You obviously aren't taking any part of it, so good riddance.

Liberty1
10-10-2011, 10:03 PM
They will now have to come up with a new reason.

'...plaintiffs are still free to carry an unloaded handgun locked in a case and may unlock and load it if needed or they may choose to carry an unloaded long gun openly...'

kenko
10-10-2011, 10:06 PM
The difference here with us, you need to back up your views with facts other than self declared ones. All you're doing is discouraging volunteerism.

You're in the Bay Area. Numerous friends of mine are in the bay area. Here is what I am a part of.

Because of my volunteer efforts, San Mateo county residents were able to get a carry license with good cause that is just slightly higher than self defense.
Numerous people in El Dorado County are now reaping the reward of electing a sheriff who I and others here have wholeheartedly used our first amendment rights to endorse for being good for carry (John D'Agostini).
We helped defeated Sheriff Rod Mitchell of Lake County, who had unlawful residency and citizenship requirements. The new sheriff (Rivero) is tremendously better and stated specifically that he would accept self defense, and no more unlawful requirements.
Because of combined effort of numerous volunteers both inside and outside of the county, residents of Sacramento County now live in a "self defense" jurisdiction. 1.4 million freed.
Because of the combined effort of volunteerism, Monterey County now accepts self defense for good cause
Because of the combined effort of volunteerism from CGN, CGF, and the Madison Society, Stanislaus County now accepts self defense as good cause
This doesn't include the numerous other small victories of changing policies which are under the radar and have the net effect of making it easier for people to apply.

So, can I ask: What have you volunteered to do lately?

We need to work on the NO issue county of Yolo.

stix213
10-10-2011, 10:06 PM
And I have resisted as well. CGF is probably a ponzi scheme for all we know. A fool and his money are easily parted. Yea you may have more more money thus more guns, and its all donated by these poor saps isn't it?

:facepalm:

This guy just sees conspiracy and defeat behind every corner? There should be some kind of university study of this guy.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 10:12 PM
'...plaintiffs are still free to carry an unloaded handgun locked in a case and may unlock and load it if needed or they may choose to carry an unloaded long gun openly...'

Yes, they can, locked in a case and unloaded does not pass constitutional muster as the only way to carry. Locked and unloaded is not a functional firearm in the eyes of heller5

sandman21
10-10-2011, 10:13 PM
What are you talking about?? UNLOADED OPEN CARRY, locked??????????
Unloaded open carry is UNLOCKED! No has said a functional locked firearm passes muster for a 2A right!! In fact thats exactly what SCOTUS said was NOT functional. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Dear god. :facepalm:
A UOC does not pass muster either, so what?
I am simply showing you there are alternative means to satisfy our 2A and that AB144 did nothing to help. Since I have showed you two options that allow care. The fact you can't understand or won't try to understand is beyond any help I can give you.

'...plaintiffs are still free to carry an unloaded handgun locked in a case and may unlock and load it if needed or they may choose to carry an unloaded long gun openly...'
Careful he won't understand you maybe in bold

taperxz
10-10-2011, 10:15 PM
Dear god. :facepalm:
A UOC does not pass muster either, so what?
I am simply showing you there are alternative means to satisfy our 2A and that AB144 did nothing to help. Since I have showed you two options that allow care. The fact you can't understand or won't try to understand is beyond any help I can give you.


Careful he won't understand you maybe in bold

LOL i didn't ask for your help, you almost sound like a cop? Your ideas are wrong constitutionally. 144 will get us closer to LTC. You just refuse to understand it.

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 10:18 PM
We need to work on the NO issue county of Yolo.

See our federal 2A lawsuit Richards v. Prieto (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness).

sandman21
10-10-2011, 10:19 PM
LOL i didn't ask for your help, you almost sound like a cop? Your ideas are wrong constitutionally. 144 will get us closer to LTC. You just refuse to understand it.

Yep, keep telling yourself that, funny Gene still think 24-36 months before LTC in CA the same figure he was giving Saturday and the week before that.

Yeah unloaded open carry is protected. :rolleyes:

taperxz
10-10-2011, 10:22 PM
You can claim a rifle will satisfy the 2A requirement, Where your ideas fail is not taking into account senior citizens, not being able to handle a rifle, woman perhaps, disabled people?

For these reasons alone, you can't consider rifles as a good way to protect ones self. Thats not even to mention people that only own one handgun for protection and now you are saying a court will judge on your analogy? A rifle is OK but not a handgun? And NO LUCC is not a viable option to LTC and the second amend.

sandman21
10-10-2011, 10:25 PM
You can claim a rifle will satisfy the 2A requirement, Where your ideas fail is not taking into account senior citizens, not being able to handle a rifle, woman perhaps, disabled people?

For these reasons alone, you can't consider rifles as a good way to protect ones self. Thats not even to mention people that only own one handgun for protection and now you are saying a court will judge on your analogy? A rifle is OK but not a handgun? And NO LUCC is not a viable option to LTC and the second amend.

Yep, we are getting LTC next week, thank god AB144 passed. :rolleyes:

taperxz
10-10-2011, 10:27 PM
Yep, keep telling yourself that, funny Gene still think 24-36 months before LTC in CA the same figure he was giving Saturday and the week before that.

Yeah unloaded open carry is protected. :rolleyes:

LOL, what are the numbers again?? 20 sheriffs won't issue but 38 sheriffs DO issue!! HMMMMM

I love how you twist things negatively and convinently for the sake of pushing your thoughts.

Since 2/3's of the states Sheriffs already issue and CGF is saying 24+ months perhaps he is talking about the clean up left to do.

rero360
10-10-2011, 10:28 PM
Careful, I even have New Hampshire. With that out of the way I'm curious about which one you have that I don't! :D

-Gene

NY, I remember showing you it at the post LA MAIG lunch, right around the time you told us at the table the devilish details on your standard capacity mag plan. :D

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 10:28 PM
And I have resisted as well. CGF is probably a ponzi scheme for all we know. A fool and his money are easily parted. Yea you may have more more money thus more guns, and its all donated by these poor saps isn't it?

I want to make one point very clear: CGF board members do not receive any compensation. The opportunity, direct, and personal costs of volunteering our time and treasure on behalf of Californians and all people under the 14th Amendment are substantial. Donations go to programs and infrastructure that advances gun rights through legal and grassroots actions, creates and distributes subject matter education, and defends innocent gun owners.

You do nothing to advance your arguments or credibility by offering very serious allegations of unlawful conduct without any substantiation whatsoever.

-Brandon

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 10:32 PM
NY, I remember showing you it at the post LA MAIG lunch, right around the time you told us at the table the devilish details on your standard capacity mag plan. :D

Oh that's right! You do win!

-Gene

warbird
10-11-2011, 12:40 AM
We need to keep the sheriffs in office that promote CCW issuance on a fair basis. However even when you are as liberal as the Sacramento sheriff seems to be only about 3,000 to 5,000 permits will be issued this year out of a population of over a million people. It is a start but we need to find a way to open the process up even further now that open carry had been banned. We need to work with sheriffs that have been identified as pro-CCW and defeat those bound and determined to keep their citizens under their thumbs as dictitorial sheriffs. The last time I read the second amendment I did not see anything in it that defined what would qualify as a weaponunder it. It was left deliberately vague by our forefathers so that we could use anything that came along in the future since they knew weapons would change. For courts or the legislators to say that one weapon qualifies over another is not what the second amendment says. Why aren't we holding their feet to the fire for this illegal defining?

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 1:03 AM
We need to keep the sheriffs in office that promote CCW issuance on a fair basis. However even when you are as liberal as the Sacramento sheriff seems to be only about 3,000 to 5,000 permits will be issued this year out of a population of over a million people. It is a start but we need to find a way to open the process up even further now that open carry had been banned. We need to work with sheriffs that have been identified as pro-CCW and defeat those bound and determined to keep their citizens under their thumbs as dictitorial sheriffs. The last time I read the second amendment I did not see anything in it that defined what would qualify as a weaponunder it. It was left deliberately vague by our forefathers so that we could use anything that came along in the future since they knew weapons would change. For courts or the legislators to say that one weapon qualifies over another is not what the second amendment says. Why aren't we holding their feet to the fire for this illegal defining?

See: Maloney v. Rice (https://files.nyu.edu/jmm257/public/mvc.html).

See also: http://calgunsfoundation.org/blog/entry/the-history-of-cgf-v-ventura-and-our-carry-license-sunshine-and-compliance-initiative.html

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present

nicki
10-11-2011, 1:22 AM
To the OP.

We may never get shall issue in California despite our best efforts, but one thing I know for sure, we will never get shall issue if we just give up.

Staying on offense on "shall issue" has other benefits, it forces our opponents on defense on other gun issues.

In 1987 when Florida passed their shall issue CCW law, there were less than 20 states that had CCW.

Over the years, the opposition to shall issue ccw has gotten weaker and weaker as more and more states went shall issue.

When Wisconsin went finally went shall issue this year, it wasn't even major news. Today we have 41 states that are shall issue.

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler warned the legislature that if they pass UOC, that they would open the door for court imposed loaded carry in California.

Adam Winkler was a speaker for the brady bunch, but he is intellectually honest, so he is rapidly coming over to our side because it is the right side.

Gun owners are getting more diverse in California, come to any of our Calgun events and you will see that our membership is diverse.

Once we figure out how to reach different groups in California, we will grow in strength and power because our cause is JUST.

Our legislature btw has term limits, so we are not stuck with anti gun legislators forever.

As Calguns grows, we will eventually get to the point to where we influence who wins local elections which will ultimately determine who wins state elections.

Yes we have had setbacks, but we learn, regroup and fight.
I refuse to be defeated and yes I will be defiant to my last dying breath.

Nicki

oni.dori
10-11-2011, 1:26 AM
Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.


You have tens of thousands of guns?

P.S. Quit being such a leftist Brady Campaign/MAIG shill.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 4:39 AM
See Planned Parenthood v. Casey.


Kennedy was the swing vote in that one, and voted to reaffirm Roe. But boy, does it look like that one was decided by the skin of its teeth.

And note that they lowered the analysis standard for future cases, so while it wasn't a complete defeat of the right to choose, it was a net loss (i.e., things were worse for the right after the case than before).


So what, exactly, are you trying to show with that case? That Kennedy is likely to adhere to precedence, as he did there? I can certainly agree with that.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 4:48 AM
Every case that Alan Gura has taken before in regards to 2A has lost in the District Courts. Some arguments are made for higher courts. I am looking forward to the 10th Circuit (mountain states) coming to a different decision than the 9th (west coast). SCOTUS doesn't like two completely opposite decisions by the circuit courts on the same issue.

How often has SCOTUS left circuit splits in place? I can hardly imagine that it hasn't been done.

Not that I think it's likely that they would here. The ink on McDonald is barely starting to dry, and 2A jurisprudence at SCOTUS is in its infancy. I hardly think they'll be willing to let the situation deteriorate into a tangled mess, much less let is stay that way.


Everything changes if one of the Heller 5 gets replaced by Obama, and I think there's a very good chance of that. For one thing, I think there's a very good chance he'll be re-elected, because I don't think the Republicans are likely to field a worthy candidate, and the Democrats will make sure Hillary runs if Gunwalker gets too hot for Obama.

If the Democrats win then it is all but certain, IMO, that we'll be done for unless SCOTUS can get us "bear" and a followup case that allows them to say that they really mean it (because you know the relevant lower courts aren't going to take the first case seriously, just like they haven't been taking Heller and McDonald seriously) before they lose a Heller 5 member.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 5:01 AM
What the people of California want doesn't matter when you're speaking of fundamental rights.


Oh yeah?

We have a fundamental right to protection from unwarranted search and seizure, to be secure in our "papers and effects". How's that fundamental right working out for you? (Even our cellphones are no longer secure from unwarranted search and seizure even during routine traffic stops)

We have a fundamental right to protection from eminent domain seizures except in the case where the seizure is for public use and when just compensation is provided. How's that fundamental right working out for you (see Kelo)?


Just because it's stated as a fundamental right in the Constitution doesn't mean it'll be treated that way. And just because SCOTUS rules one way doesn't prevent them from ruling some other way later on.


That said, I don't think Wild Squid is entirely correct (ETA: not by a long shot, actually -- we'll get shall-issue LTC, all right ... eventually). But I will say this: I do think it's going to take quite a lot longer to get "shall issue" LTC here in California in practice than most here believe, because unlike the days of the civil rights movement when SCOTUS had the entire federal government behind it to act as an enforcement arm, right now we have an executive branch that is so intent on reducing our RKBA that it was willing to unlawfully furnish arms to the Mexican drug cartels in order to make it appear that our firearms dealers were complicit in the flow of arms across the border. If you think that very same executive branch is going to be willing to throw its weight behind a Supreme Court that it fundamentally disagrees with, then, well, I'd be quite surprised -- you don't seem that naive. (The Court will have control of the Federal Marshalls, but that's all the support they'd get. It might be enough...dunno).

dwtt
10-11-2011, 5:01 AM
And I have resisted as well. CGF is probably a ponzi scheme for all we know. A fool and his money are easily parted. Yea you may have more more money thus more guns, and its all donated by these poor saps isn't it?

Do you know who Stator is?
Is that you, Stator?

ccmc
10-11-2011, 5:17 AM
I do think it's going to take quite a lot longer to get "shall issue" LTC here in California in practice than most here believe, because unlike the days of the civil rights movement when SCOTUS had the entire federal government behind it to act as an enforcement arm, right now we have an executive branch that is so intent on reducing our RKBA that it was willing to unlawfully furnish arms to the Mexican drug cartels in order to make it appear that our firearms dealers were complicit in the flow of arms across the border. If you think that very same executive branch is going to be willing to throw its weight behind a Supreme Court that it fundamentally disagrees with, then, well, I'd be quite surprised -- you don't seem that naive. (The Court will have control of the Federal Marshalls, but that's all the support they'd get. It might be enough...dunno).

Not only that, but there isn't the groundswell of civil disobedience that there was during the civil rights movement. People that live in no issue counties are neither flooding the local sheriff with LTC applications nor carrying anyway in defiance of an unjust law. I understand nobody wants to waste time or money in futilely applying for an LTC that won't be granted, nor risk being arrested for carrying illegally, but in the civil rights era people tried to register to vote, integrate schools, refused to move on the bus, etc, all actions which subjected them to arrest and/or worse. We're not seeing that today even if people want to now refer to RKBA as civil rights.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 5:20 AM
Their (Yolo) argument, was based on the ability to UOC. They were granted a postponement based on the outcome of AB 144. They will now have to come up with a new reason.

The ruling does not specifically refer to UOC, it only says that people "are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a public setting". Because that wording does not explicitly limit itself to UOC, it quite clearly must be interpreted to include LUCC.


The Peruta ruling may have more explicitly referred to UOC. Dunno. But in the case of Richards, quite clearly the issue is going to revolve around the notion of carry of a functional firearm, as per Heller. Guess what? That could easily leave open the door to legislation limiting us to LLCC, unless Richards preemptively deals with that possibility.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 5:25 AM
For you SCOTUS whiners. 1. My dog polls higher than Obama in the next election.


You shouldn't underestimate the ability of the Republicans to field a candidate that would lose to your dog.



2. Why would any of the Heller 5 allow themselves to be replaced under a D executive?


What makes you think life will give them the choice?

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 5:52 AM
Not only that, but there isn't the groundswell of civil disobedience that there was during the civil rights movement. People that live in no issue counties are neither flooding the local sheriff with LTC applications nor carrying anyway in defiance of an unjust law. I understand nobody wants to waste time or money in futilely applying for an LTC that won't be granted, nor risk being arrested for carrying illegally, but in the civil rights era people tried to register to vote, integrate schools, refused to move on the bus, etc, all actions which subjected them to arrest and/or worse. We're not seeing that today even if people want to now refer to RKBA as civil rights.

I'm not really sure how relevant this is, really. Civil disobedience (but, more likely, other measures) won the population over to the civil rights side of things, but that's not really a problem in most of the country in the case of RKBA. It is a huge problem here in California, and I don't see that changing for a very long time, but I could be wrong. Gene seems to think that the support for RKBA in the rest of the country is somehow relevant to the enforcement of SCOTUS rulings here (I certainly don't see how it's relevant to the politics here, as evidenced by the fact that where the rest of the country went one direction in the last election, we went the opposite), but I haven't seen him make a convincing argument to that effect yet.

I've pretty much given up on analysis of political situations, though, since I seem to suck at it so much. So Gene could easily be right about all of that. I guess we'll see.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 5:54 AM
Oh, and to Wild Squid: even if you're completely right, I'd rather go down fighting. Some things are worth fighting for until you win or you're dead. Freedom, most especially the freedom and right to meaningfully defend yourself, is one of those things.

NeuTag
10-11-2011, 6:00 AM
And I had only posted about my Opa and his military service....

Chill and reflect....Gov. Brown is about regulation of firearms...We can politically manipulate that....We can't manipulate the stupid gun owners with big mouths in Calif. Those individuals need lawyers.

from one Calif. made inadvertant felon to another.

negolien
10-11-2011, 7:52 AM
Not to mention the 9 month wait JUST TO TURN IN THE APPLICATION!!!!!

ironpete
10-11-2011, 7:57 AM
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Disclaimer: Do not accuse me of being left wing or from the Brady camp. I'm simply a realist and have given up on the 2A fight. Also, I have more guns than you have money.

I think with the recent signing into law making it illegal to carry unloaded in the open, many of you think this is some kind of gateway to Shall Issue CCW. Especially with the Standardization of CCW application processes right? Wrong. I do not believe the "Standardization" will make it much easier for the average Joe Schmoe to get a CCW. It will probably require a guideline of Good Cause that Sheriffs can easily use to still deny the majority that apply. CA will never have Shall Issue, because the People don't want it. Until that changes, no amount of legislation will ever force CA to do what it doesn't want to do. I said it here first.

uyoga
10-11-2011, 8:08 AM
This is not the time to acquiesce. We can not give up. We have come a long way, and have attained significant goals. There are more wins in the pipeline. Don't give up on the cause, bro.

r3dn3ck
10-11-2011, 8:37 AM
I am happy that you feel that way. But the Big Brains that have been working on this strategy for the past several years, and spending big bucks to do so seem to think otherwise. You can nay-say all you like, it is a free country. But don't expect a bunch of us to jump up and down and decide that you are right. Yes, yoou said it on here. Good for you. But when we get shall issue LTC, will you stand by this statement?

-Mb

+1

naysayers never help. they only get morale down.

ccmc
10-11-2011, 9:22 AM
I'm not really sure how relevant this is, really. Civil disobedience (but, more likely, other measures) won the population over to the civil rights side of things, but that's not really a problem in most of the country in the case of RKBA. It is a huge problem here in California, and I don't see that changing for a very long time, but I could be wrong. Gene seems to think that the support for RKBA in the rest of the country is somehow relevant to the enforcement of SCOTUS rulings here (I certainly don't see how it's relevant to the politics here, as evidenced by the fact that where the rest of the country went one direction in the last election, we went the opposite), but I haven't seen him make a convincing argument to that effect yet.

I've pretty much given up on analysis of political situations, though, since I seem to suck at it so much. So Gene could easily be right about all of that. I guess we'll see.

More than a few people here have made the comparison to Rosa Parks, James Meredith et al and the civil rights movement in the 50s and early 60s. I was just pointing out some differences in how the people involved acted. The biggest factor in bringing down Jim Crow IMHO was economic starting with the Montgomery bus boycott, but civil disobedience of unjust laws played a part.

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 9:33 AM
Do you know who Stator is?
Is that you, Stator?

:chris: :rofl2:

-Brandon