PDA

View Full Version : To all the Chicken Littles on the board:


Smokeybehr
10-10-2011, 2:34 PM
This is not the end of the world. Please read through the many Richards and Peruta threads in the forum, and realize that now that AB144 has passed, it changes the whole lower court's reasoning. Court cases and briefs are in the process of being written and filed. Look for more information from all the right people in the next :twoweeks: about these filings. Until then, take some muscle relaxants to keep your knees from jerking.:D

taperxz
10-10-2011, 2:38 PM
Posting only to show my new signature line:)

orangeusa
10-10-2011, 2:41 PM
I agree. I do love how the fokls in the know take a lemon and turn it into lemonade. I'm serious. You change your battle plans or have contingencies for a lot of these types of votes/laws enacted... We got some smart folks on our side! :) Give em hell CGF!

(@taperxy - postwhore - selling your mallard decoys). :)

radioman
10-10-2011, 2:42 PM
who said the sky is falling?

mrdd
10-10-2011, 3:25 PM
The sky is falling? OMG!

Actually, it is raining today - Time to get an umbrella!

G60
10-10-2011, 3:34 PM
who said the sky is falling?

The entire first page of the 2A forum.

galactusnt
10-10-2011, 4:38 PM
Hardly. But I damn well better see some major core rights cases, injunctions, whatever, come down the pike in short order. When the dust settles I beter be able to walk the length and breadth of California with any damn handgun I want, with any damn magazine size, in at least one form of carry without needing a computer to gps my path to avoid school zones and a permission slip from the damn Sheriff. (Especially here in San Diego).

mag360
10-10-2011, 4:45 PM
there is a LOT of unfamiliar names posting in here today.

hello!

where were you the past year?

what have you done to help?

stix213
10-10-2011, 4:52 PM
What's with all the defeatists out today? When SCOTUS once and for all forces loaded carry across the entire country, these attempts by the legislature to restrict it are going to just seem silly. We really didn't even lose much at all last night.

Since Yolo country already said that Unloaded Open Carry should satisfy the 2A, and the district court agreed, I really really want to see how they back pedal themselves out of that now that Unloaded Open Carry is off the table. Its going to be some serious legal ninjitsu to pull that off.

jrr
10-10-2011, 4:56 PM
Seriously... the sense of entitlement in some posts is driving me nuts today. Lawyers aren't free, court filing are not free, appeals are not free. Even Writing letters to Sheriffs and subpoenaing documents costs money people, and CalGuns only has so much of it.

If you feel like you can demand that certain things happen, then I assume you have a receipt for the tens of thousands of dollars you donated personally to CalGuns that will pay for your demands. If not, then guess what? They have to make do with what they've got, and that means they do triage to figure out what needs to be done first.

They've got some damn fine attorneys working with them, people who have gotten results that we are all benefiting from. And other organizations like CRPA have done their best to lobby for us. But you don't win all of them all the time.

We suffered a loss, get over it. Donate what you can. If you have more time than money, I'm sure that is appreciated. IF you want to have some control over what is done and when, then get involved, go to meetings, put some effort into it. But enough with the "what have you done for me lately" attitude.

I agree with the OP, everyone just chill.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 4:57 PM
Haven't there already been scotus rulings that give states the power to "tweak" our rights ever so slightly? That's the argument that has always been used in the past. Unless it's an outright ban, then the chances of an overturn are slim to none.

Sorry to be pessimistic, but hey, I'm just callin' it as I see it.

ElvenSoul
10-10-2011, 5:00 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.

ckprax
10-10-2011, 5:08 PM
What's with all the defeatists out today? When SCOTUS once and for all forces loaded carry across the entire country, these attempts by the legislature to restrict it are going to just seem silly. We really didn't even lose much at all last night.

Since Yolo country already said that Unloaded Open Carry should satisfy the 2A, and the district court agreed, I really really want to see how they back pedal themselves out of that now that Unloaded Open Carry is off the table. Its going to be some serious legal ninjitsu to pull that off.

I can see them saying LUCC will suffice or following NY's lead and claiming that they issue to some so that's good enough. They will feed us some BS. We need a SC ruling in our favor, and they still may try to weasel out of it.

I am not convinced that AB144 changes things all that much. We now have an even stronger argument but there are no guarantees, we always have a better argument than the anti's, yet the lower courts regularly let us down.

Last night was not the end of the world, but it certainly does not fast track Shall Issue LTC.

stix213
10-10-2011, 5:09 PM
Haven't there already been scotus rulings that give states the power to "tweak" our rights ever so slightly? That's the argument that has always been used in the past. Unless it's an outright ban, then the chances of an overturn are slim to none.

Sorry to be pessimistic, but hey, I'm just callin' it as I see it.

States can enact laws related to various constitutional rights, and if/when challenged in court they are analysed based on various levels of scrutiny. This is a much discussed topic on this forum, and the level of scrutiny a gun law is analysed under is very important for determining constitutionality. You should be able to find several threads on the topic that go in depth.

A state can require a permit to stage a large protest march, that they have to issue without political bias for example, and that's so far considered ok as far as the 1A goes. The 2A version of that is not even written yet, which is why as we keep winning there is obviously going to be attempts at a push back (which is what is happening in the CA legislature).

Term
10-10-2011, 5:11 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 back our rights.

Fixed it for you.

stix213
10-10-2011, 5:12 PM
I can see them saying LUCC will suffice or following NY's lead and claiming that they issue to some so that's good enough. They will feed us some BS. We need a SC ruling in our favor, and they still may try to weasel out of it.

I am not convinced that AB144 changes things all that much. We now have an even stronger argument but there are no guarantees, we always have a better argument than the anti's, yet the lower courts regularly let us down.

Last night was not the end of the world, but it certainly does not fast track Shall Issue LTC.

I would be seriously surprised if Yolo even mentions that LUCC on your person is largely legal.

Cokebottle
10-10-2011, 5:16 PM
Posting only to show my new signature line:)
Spamming your decoys again ehh? :D

sighere
10-10-2011, 5:21 PM
AB 144 is not a loss for us. It focuses the issue and will force the courts to deal with the fact as mentioned above that Peruta and Richards relied heavily on UOC. While I don't think Gov Moonbeam did it for my benefit, I think he shot the liberal courts square in the foot on this one. (of course in his case it's probably just a negligent discharge)

hasserl
10-10-2011, 5:27 PM
What's with all the defeatists out today? When SCOTUS once and for all forces loaded carry across the entire country, these attempts by the legislature to restrict it are going to just seem silly. We really didn't even lose much at all last night.

Since Yolo country already said that Unloaded Open Carry should satisfy the 2A, and the district court agreed, I really really want to see how they back pedal themselves out of that now that Unloaded Open Carry is off the table. Its going to be some serious legal ninjitsu to pull that off.

Seriously... the sense of entitlement in some posts is driving me nuts today. Lawyers aren't free, court filing are not free, appeals are not free. Even Writing letters to Sheriffs and subpoenaing documents costs money people, and CalGuns only has so much of it.

If you feel like you can demand that certain things happen, then I assume you have a receipt for the tens of thousands of dollars you donated personally to CalGuns that will pay for your demands. If not, then guess what? They have to make do with what they've got, and that means they do triage to figure out what needs to be done first.

They've got some damn fine attorneys working with them, people who have gotten results that we are all benefiting from. And other organizations like CRPA have done their best to lobby for us. But you don't win all of them all the time.

We suffered a loss, get over it. Donate what you can. If you have more time than money, I'm sure that is appreciated. IF you want to have some control over what is done and when, then get involved, go to meetings, put some effort into it. But enough with the "what have you done for me lately" attitude.

I agree with the OP, everyone just chill.

You see, the problem here guys is, before the election these things were discussed. We all talked about what a liberal flamer Moonbeam Brown is and what a terrible governor he would make, particularly in light of the liberal state legislature and the damage they could do together to the state. But some on here tried to tell us how pro-2A Brown is. We argued about it here, and we refuted those claims, but the pro-Brown crowd simply wouldn't listen to reason. It all reeked terribly of some kind of quid pro quo, i.e. gun owners support traded for some kind of promise that he would be supportive of gun rights. Well, the first chance Brown has to show his 2A support he fails miserably, and in the process he tossed aside all of the tools that helped to get him elected.

So yeah, we got screwed, big time, and we have a good right to be pissed off and to make some noise about it.

stix213
10-10-2011, 5:30 PM
You see, the problem here guys is, before the election these things were discussed. We all talked about what a liberal flamer Moonbeam Brown is and what a terrible governor he would make, particularly in light of the liberal state legislature and the damage they could do together to the state. But some on here tried to tell us how pro-2A Brown is. We argued about it here, and we refuted those claims, but the pro-Brown crowd simply wouldn't listen to reason. It all reeked terribly of some kind of quid pro quo, i.e. gun owners support traded for some kind of promise that he would be supportive of gun rights. Well, the first chance Brown has to show his 2A support he fails miserably, and in the process he tossed aside all of the tools that helped to get him elected.

So yeah, we got screwed, big time, and we have a good right to be pissed off and to make some noise about it.

You have to look at the choice in context. The choice wasn't between Brown and some fictitious 2A purist.

The choice was between Meg, who would have signed them all except the Pro-2A bill, and Brown who vetoed the ammo registration bill while signing the Pro-2A carry license bill.

No matter what you think of Brown, we still made the correct choice between the two on election day.

Tarn_Helm
10-10-2011, 5:37 PM
Seriously... the sense of entitlement in some posts is driving me nuts today. Lawyers aren't free, court filing are not free, appeals are not free. Even Writing letters to Sheriffs and subpoenaing documents costs money people, and CalGuns only has so much of it.

If you feel like you can demand that certain things happen, then I assume you have a receipt for the tens of thousands of dollars you donated personally to CalGuns that will pay for your demands. If not, then guess what? They have to make do with what they've got, and that means they do triage to figure out what needs to be done first.

They've got some damn fine attorneys working with them, people who have gotten results that we are all benefiting from. And other organizations like CRPA have done their best to lobby for us. But you don't win all of them all the time.

We suffered a loss, get over it. Donate what you can. If you have more time than money, I'm sure that is appreciated. IF you want to have some control over what is done and when, then get involved, go to meetings, put some effort into it. But enough with the "what have you done for me lately" attitude.

I agree with the OP, everyone just chill.

Hang on now.

My RIGHTS ARE FREE.

Not bought and paid for.

Anyone who tries to take them will pay.

I charge quite dearly.

This notion that we have to buy our rights back by hiring lawyers to shuffle papers IS the MOTHER****ING PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.

"A bill of rights may be considered, not only as intended to give law, and assign limits to a government about to be established, but as giving information to the people. By reducing speculative truths to fundamental laws, every man of the meanest capacity and understanding may learn his own rights, and know when they are violated . . . ." – St. George Tucker (See U.S. Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook's article on this topic.) (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8710&context=expresso)

Is that loud and clear enough?

"Keep and bear" means "own and carry."

"Keep and bear" does NOT mean "own if you register and carry if some official clown will issue you a fake 'permit'."

Brown is simply proving himself to be the traitor most of us always knew he would be.

Admit it.

:chris:

Cokebottle
10-10-2011, 5:39 PM
My RIGHTS ARE FREE.

Not bought and paid for.
Oh no... they were bought and paid for quite dearly with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

radioburning
10-10-2011, 5:41 PM
Seriously... the sense of entitlement in some posts is driving me nuts today. Lawyers aren't free, court filing are not free, appeals are not free. Even Writing letters to Sheriffs and subpoenaing documents costs money people, and CalGuns only has so much of it.

If you feel like you can demand that certain things happen, then I assume you have a receipt for the tens of thousands of dollars you donated personally to CalGuns that will pay for your demands. If not, then guess what? They have to make do with what they've got, and that means they do triage to figure out what needs to be done first.

They've got some damn fine attorneys working with them, people who have gotten results that we are all benefiting from. And other organizations like CRPA have done their best to lobby for us. But you don't win all of them all the time.

We suffered a loss, get over it. Donate what you can. If you have more time than money, I'm sure that is appreciated. IF you want to have some control over what is done and when, then get involved, go to meetings, put some effort into it. But enough with the "what have you done for me lately" attitude.

I agree with the OP, everyone just chill.

+174jd32j1o442!!!

The "right people" have been kicking arse and taking names for years now, fighting hard to win back our rights, they're saying this is better than it looks on the surface, and CG is still full of crybabies demanding this and demanding that while questioning the way things get done.

Way to show an understanding of the battle being fought, and gratitude to the people doing the fighting for you.:rolleyes:

taperxz
10-10-2011, 5:45 PM
Spamming your decoys again ehh? :D

LOL NO! I'm talking about Brandons quote in my sig line. Guess I mucked that up. Decoys have been on there so long I forgot. LOL

sandman21
10-10-2011, 5:57 PM
This is not the end of the world. Please read through the many Richards and Peruta threads in the forum, and realize that now that AB144 has passed, it changes the whole lower court's reasoning. Court cases and briefs are in the process of being written and filed. Look for more information from all the right people in the next :twoweeks: about these filings. Until then, take some muscle relaxants to keep your knees from jerking.:D

Yet none of the "right people" are celebrating the passage and before it passed vehemently opposed it, all the while some thought it would be great for it to pass. Hmmmmmm makes me think it was bad that it passed.

I think infringing on anyone's rights is bad and should be viewed as such, but I guess some are fine with the state them how to protest and to wear while petitioning their elected officials. Guess the state should ban red shirts, they are bad.

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 6:04 PM
If you actually live this mantra, then I presume you LOC without a license wherever you want.

What's that - you're not?

Looks like your rights AREN'T free, either.

Admit it.

-Brandon

Hang on now.

My RIGHTS ARE FREE.

Not bought and paid for.

Anyone who tries to take them will pay.

I charge quite dearly.

This notion that we have to buy our rights back by hiring lawyers to shuffle papers IS the MOTHER****ING PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.

"A bill of rights may be considered, not only as intended to give law, and assign limits to a government about to be established, but as giving information to the people. By reducing speculative truths to fundamental laws, every man of the meanest capacity and understanding may learn his own rights, and know when they are violated . . . ." – St. George Tucker (See U.S. Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook's article on this topic.) (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8710&context=expresso)

Is that loud and clear enough?

"Keep and bear" means "own and carry."

"Keep and bear" does NOT mean "own if you register and carry if some official clown will issue you a fake 'permit'."

Brown is simply proving himself to be the traitor most of us always knew he would be.

Admit it.

:chris:

ke6guj
10-10-2011, 6:07 PM
I would be seriously surprised if Yolo even mentions that LUCC on your person is largely legal.

LUCC has already been mentioned by LCAV in the Yolo case, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7251019#post7251019

taperxz
10-10-2011, 6:08 PM
If you actually live this mantra, then I presume you LOC without a license wherever you want.

What's that - you're not?

Looks like your rights AREN'T free, either.

Admit it.

-Brandon

Better yet, Freedom isn't free! Whether through blood, money, sweat or tears.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 6:11 PM
States can enact laws related to various constitutional rights, and if/when challenged in court they are analysed based on various levels of scrutiny. This is a much discussed topic on this forum, and the level of scrutiny a gun law is analysed under is very important for determining constitutionality. You should be able to find several threads on the topic that go in depth.

A state can require a permit to stage a large protest march, that they have to issue without political bias for example, and that's so far considered ok as far as the 1A goes. The 2A version of that is not even written yet, which is why as we keep winning there is obviously going to be attempts at a push back (which is what is happening in the CA legislature).

Right, but look at past examples where similar laws have been passed. There have been lawsuits, but in the end, the scotus has always sided with the state. I'm not saying that's going to happen here, but if you look at the track record for what has happened in the past, the outlook doesn't really look good for you guys.

Still, my fingers are crossed. I have little faith that our governments, both at a state and federal level, will use common sense and do the right thing.

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 6:12 PM
Better yet, Freedom isn't free! Whether through blood, money, sweat or tears.

I'll gladly donate time and treasure today to avoid a bloody civil war tomorrow.

-Brandon

stix213
10-10-2011, 6:15 PM
Right, but look at past examples where similar laws have been passed. There have been lawsuits, but in the end, the scotus has always sided with the state. I'm not saying that's going to happen here, but if you look at the track record for what has happened in the past, the outlook doesn't really look good for you guys.

Still, my fingers are crossed. I have little faith that our governments, both at a state and federal level, will use common sense and do the right thing.

SCOTUS didn't side with the state in the Heller or McDonald cases at all. They told the state to shove it and start respecting the constitution. SCOTUS has not yet heard a carry case since either of those two important 2A cases.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 6:16 PM
Scotus didn't side with the state in the Heller or McDonald cases at all. They told the state to shove it and start respecting the constitution. Not going to be the last time either.

But wasn't that an all-out ban that was overturned? Like I said, those cases are the only successful ones. Slight tweaking usually gets the thumbs up from SCOTUS.

They'll argue that because you can still own guns, then your rights aren't being infringed.

stix213
10-10-2011, 6:18 PM
But wasn't that an all-out ban that was overturned? Like I said, those cases are the only successful ones. Slight tweaking usually gets the thumbs up from SCOTUS.

You quote pretty fast, or I edit too slow :p

SCOTUS really hasn't heard many 2A cases at all. I'm unaware of any recent case where they have given the nod to any slight tweaking.

intradubio
10-10-2011, 6:18 PM
lucc doesn't sound very legal to me (other than to/from/in car). Is the argument that when not at home you are always going to or from your car?

Tarn_Helm
10-10-2011, 6:19 PM
Oh no... they were bought and paid for quite dearly with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Don't be confused by the literal/figurative distinction.

(Or confuse others.)

My rights were fought for--not bought with money.

Not purchased.

Lawyers acting as middlemen, selling them back and forth to each other while we stand by helplessly, only serve to cheapen the worth of that blood sacrifice by turning the deaths of our founding patriots into a venal, paltry, petty word game.

I want to vomit down the throats of these middlemen, these pimps.

Literally.

I know what words mean, and I can read for myself.

The constitution does not say what any of The High Priests of Obscurantist Legal "Interpretation" say it means.

I will be damned to Hell before I will bow down, kowtowing, to those vicious dwarves.

taperxz
10-10-2011, 6:21 PM
lucc doesn't sound very legal to me (other than to/from/in car). Is the argument that when not at home you are always going to or from your car?

LUCC basically includes transport in any way shape or form for all legal purposes.

They nay sayers will disagree but if the case is locked and you don't give permission to LE to open the case, they don't know whats in there anyway and would have to violate your rights to get into the case.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 6:24 PM
You quote pretty fast, or I edit too slow :p

SCOTUS really hasn't heard many 2A cases at all. I'm unaware of any recent case where they have given the nod to any slight tweaking.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269004575073771717464954.html?m %20od=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews

Yet, this next passage gives court watchers some pause. "Of course," Justice Scalia continued, "properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."

Now a claim to the contrary—that the Second Amendment does limit arms control by the states—is pending. Justice Scalia declined to comment through a court spokeswoman.

I thought that was part of the ruling. I could be wrong though! I just remember all of us over at the NY forum feeling like we didn't stand a chance in hell because of this.

Tarn_Helm
10-10-2011, 6:25 PM
If you actually live this mantra, then I presume you LOC without a license wherever you want.

What's that - you're not?

Looks like your rights AREN'T free, either.

Admit it.

-Brandon

Admit "it?"

LOL.

Keep typing.

You'll hit 10,000 posts eventually.

Then you will win a little plastic toy dwarf with fuzzy flourescent hair.
:cool:

Good night, folks.

I've had my fill of all this tomfoolery for now.
:facepalm:

taperxz
10-10-2011, 6:30 PM
Don't be confused by the literal/figurative distinction.

(Or confuse others.)

My rights were fought for--not bought with money.

Not purchased.

Lawyers acting as middlemen, selling them back and forth to each other while we stand by helplessly, only serve to cheapen the worth of that blood sacrifice by turning the deaths of our founding patriots into a venal, paltry, petty word game.

I want to vomit down the throats of these middlemen, these pimps.

Literally.

I know what words mean, and I can read for myself.

The constitution does not say what any of The High Priests of Obscurantist Legal "Interpretation" say it means.

I will be damned to Hell before I will bow down, kowtowing, to those vicious dwarves.

I assume you feel this way about all your entitlements? Give me give me.

HowardW56
10-10-2011, 6:40 PM
AB 144 is not a loss for us. It focuses the issue and will force the courts to deal with the fact as mentioned above that Peruta and Richards relied heavily on UOC. While I don't think Gov Moonbeam did it for my benefit, I think he shot the liberal courts square in the foot on this one. (of course in his case it's probably just a negligent discharge)


:laugh:

markm
10-10-2011, 6:43 PM
Hey All,

The 2A board is full of polarized opinions today.

Did Brown do us a favor: No way.

Is CalGuns full of cool-aid drinkers: No way.

However, any reasonable person should conclude that, in Kalifornia, we are fighting a pyrrhic battle. In pitched battle, the front lines faulter and tremble before a blowout occurs. Without SCOTUS involvement, we will lose in Kali. Our front lines are surging, faultering, and about to fail. As G.S. Patton intimated to one of his Generals, we must be the stupid one who keeps fighting, because that General usually wins the battle. Keep fighting Calguns!

To Jerry Brown Cool-Aid drinkers:
We have too many people who vote liberal democrat, but proclaim their support for 2A. These people suffer from a true dichotomy of logic. Posters who vote Democrat are the problem; you are anti RKBA. Meg may not have been our dream governor, but at least we would have had a chance. Brown has never been pro RKBA and never will be; he is an ardent liberal (neo-Marxist). What do you think about the Dream Act? Barbara Boxer is not pro gun. Darrel Stienburg is not pro 2A.

Victory can only be taken if the winners understand reality. The reality of our Kali situation is that we are not winning. We are struggling on every front to save our rights. We gain some, we lose some. We are treading water.

As I recall, King Pyrrhus said to his leutenant after a great pitched battle against the Romans: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." (unknown accuracy of quote; historians were not present to accurately document what Pyrrhus said -- good paraphrase though.) Pyrrhus' army had been dessimated by the battle; his General staff had been killed.

One more victory like last night, and 2A in Kali will be utterly ruined! Stop calling it a victory. WE LOST THE BATTLE!

Calguns, please keep fighting for us; however, don't lose sight of reality.

markm

stix213
10-10-2011, 6:47 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269004575073771717464954.html?m %20od=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews


??? You linked an old article about the McDonald case prior to our victory in that case. We won that one. What's your point?

stix213
10-10-2011, 6:51 PM
To Jerry Brown Cool-Aid drinkers:


How many times does it have to be said???11?!?!?!1!!!/?? The choice was between Meg who would have signed the ammo ban as well, and between Brown who vetoed it. No one has ever said Brown was a governor plucked straight out of rural Arizona. What has been said is Brown was a better choice than Meg, which he proved 100% yesterday. Do you just wish Meg was elected so we could have gotten the ammo ban signed too? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

The election wasn't Brown vs Ted Nugent, it was Brown vs anti-gun Meg. Seriously I don't get this "I told you so" crap about Brown when the alternative was clearly much worse.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 6:51 PM
It was more that quote I was pulling, where the judge ruled that states still had a right to limit the second, just not abolish it completely. I believe it was also mentioned in the decision after that case, but that article is what came up when I punched it into google.

Like I said, I could be totally wrong about this. Let me keep looking.

stix213
10-10-2011, 6:55 PM
It was more that quote I was pulling, where the judge ruled that states still had a right to limit the second, just not abolish it completely. I believe it was also mentioned in the decision after that case, but that article is what came up when I punched it into google.

Like I said, I could be totally wrong about this. Let me keep looking.

That is where scrutiny comes in like I already said. Read up on that. SCOTUS is likely going to allow bans on guns in state owned buildings, in a kindergarten class room, and ownership by people let out of prison early for good behavior even with a murder under their belt. They aren't going to be cool with broad limits on the general law abiding population that restrict core "keep and bear" rights.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 7:01 PM
Ahhh, I see. I was thinking about McDonald, not Heller. Got them mixed up. Sorry about that.

Here's another article that might explain where I got my understanding from. Warning, it's long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html

Here's the forum where I last discussed it.

http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/9933-mcdonald-v-city-chicago-decision.html

markm
10-10-2011, 7:03 PM
It was more that quote I was pulling, where the judge ruled that states still had a right to limit the second, just not abolish it completely. I believe it was also mentioned in the decision after that case, but that article is what came up when I punched it into google.

Like I said, I could be totally wrong about this. Let me keep looking.

Hey Temporaryscars,

I don't think you need to look further. SCOTUS has ruled that enumerated rights may be regulated using legal theories such as "strict scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny".

And now inferior courts are pushing another theory where they can limit enumerated rights (I don't remember what this theory is called). If I researched this topic, I could find more examples; but I don't need to.

States can regulate enumerated rights to death, if they wish. Ask the people of Chicago and DC. Citizens are still trying to get handguns in their homes--three years after Heller and 1.5 years after McDonald.

Try transporting a handgun through New York or Illinois. Do you feel lucky?

markm

hasserl
10-10-2011, 7:04 PM
You have to look at the choice in context. The choice wasn't between Brown and some fictitious 2A purist.

The choice was between Meg, who would have signed them all except the Pro-2A bill, and Brown who vetoed the ammo registration bill while signing the Pro-2A carry license bill.

No matter what you think of Brown, we still made the correct choice between the two on election day.

How many times does it have to be said???11?!?!?!1!!!/?? The choice was between Meg who would have signed the ammo ban as well, and between Brown who vetoed it. No one has ever said Brown was a governor plucked straight out of rural Arizona. What has been said is Brown was a better choice than Meg, which he proved 100% yesterday. Do you just wish Meg was elected so we could have gotten the ammo ban signed too? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

The election wasn't Brown vs Ted Nugent, it was Brown vs anti-gun Meg. Seriously I don't get this "I told you so" crap about Brown when the alternative was clearly much worse.

Where did you get this crystal ball that allows you to see what Meg would have done? Please., quit this idiotic line of reasoning, and quit trying to rationalize away the fact that we just got screwed by this guy!!!! Your intellectual dishonesty is amazing. It's hard to believe the cool aid was that strong. You were mislead, you were used, you were a tool, admit it now and show some humility.

hasserl
10-10-2011, 7:07 PM
...

To Jerry Brown Cool-Aid drinkers:
We have too many people who vote liberal democrat, but proclaim their support for 2A. These people suffer from a true dichotomy of logic. Posters who vote Democrat are the problem; you are anti RKBA. Meg may not have been our dream governor, but at least we would have had a chance. Brown has never been pro RKBA and never will be; he is an ardent liberal (neo-Marxist). What do you think about the Dream Act? Barbara Boxer is not pro gun. Darrel Stienburg is not pro 2A.

Victory can only be taken if the winners understand reality. The reality of our Kali situation is that we are not winning. We are struggling on every front to save our rights. We gain some, we lose some. We are treading water.

As I recall, King Pyrrhus said to his leutenant after a great pitched battle against the Romans: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." (unknown accuracy of quote; historians were not present to accurately document what Pyrrhus said -- good paraphrase though.) Pyrrhus' army had been dessimated by the battle; his General staff had been killed.

One more victory like last night, and 2A in Kali will be utterly ruined! Stop calling it a victory. WE LOST THE BATTLE!

Calguns, please keep fighting for us; however, don't lose sight of reality.

markm

+1M

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 7:16 PM
Hey Temporaryscars,

I don't think you need to look further. SCOTUS has ruled that enumerated rights may be regulated using legal theories such as "strict scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny".

And now inferior courts are pushing another theory where they can limit enumerated rights (I don't remember what this theory is called). If I researched this topic, I could find more examples; but I don't need to.

States can regulate enumerated rights to death, if they wish. Ask the people of Chicago and DC. Citizens are still trying to get handguns in their homes--three years after Heller and 1.5 years after McDonald.

Try transporting a handgun through New York or Illinois. Do you feel lucky?

markm

Yeah! That's what I thought I had read. It kind of deflated whatever hopes we had after the ruling, because of that included caveat.

markm
10-10-2011, 7:18 PM
How many times does it have to be said???11?!?!?!1!!!/?? The choice was between Meg who would have signed the ammo ban as well, and between Brown who vetoed it. No one has ever said Brown was a governor plucked straight out of rural Arizona. What has been said is Brown was a better choice than Meg, which he proved 100% yesterday. Do you just wish Meg was elected so we could have gotten the ammo ban signed too? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

The election wasn't Brown vs Ted Nugent, it was Brown vs anti-gun Meg. Seriously I don't get this "I told you so" crap about Brown when the alternative was clearly much worse.

Hey Stix213,

I don't recall Meg saying that she was anti-gun like Jerry is. She was definately not gung-ho pro RKBA. She would not have signed the Dream Act.

How do you know Meg would have signed the ammo ban? You are speculating. Rationalizers do that sort of thing.

You voted for an anti-gun neo-Marxist. Jerry's record is long and consistant.

He is a big government, command and control liberal.

The choice was 100% anti-gun v. a 20% anti-gun person. I'll take the 80% pro-enumerated rights candidate over Jerry Brown. It was a lousy choice; but the only choice we had.

markm

stix213
10-10-2011, 7:29 PM
Hey Stix213,

I don't recall Meg saying that she was anti-gun like Jerry is. She was definately not gung-ho pro RKBA. She would not have signed the Dream Act.

How do you know Meg would have signed the ammo ban? You are speculating. Rationalizers do that sort of thing.

You voted for an anti-gun neo-Marxist. Jerry's record is long and consistant.

He is a big government, command and control liberal.

The choice was 100% anti-gun v. a 20% anti-gun person. I'll take the 80% pro-enumerated rights candidate over Jerry Brown. It was a lousy choice; but the only choice we had.

markm

What's the Dream Act have anything to do with gun rights?

Meg on the 2A:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-13/bay-area/17190174_1_sen-john-mccain-abortion-rights-budget-gap

Whitman said she supports abortion rights - including public funding for abortions - and believes tough gun laws like assault weapon bans and handgun control are appropriate for California.


How does Jerry vetoing ammo registration and signing the pro-2a CCW bill make him 100% anti anyway? What's being a liberal have specifically to do with gun rights?

I'll admit I disagree with JB on practically every single issue, except he beats eMeg on the gun issue. Why would you be advocating for someone who says flat out she wants tough handgun control? I mean she just put it right out in the open there, without even trying to fake it. I seriously don't get it. If you just hate the union support and the Dream Act, then you're in the wrong sub forum. She was 110% anti-gun, take your blinders off, she couldn't have made it known anymore plainly unless she put it on her bumper stickers.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 7:36 PM
Honestly, I think the real solution to the problem is just leaving. That's my plan. I'm getting out of this east coast dump. Why contribute to a tax base that doesn't give two sheights about my constitutional rights?

stix213
10-10-2011, 7:40 PM
Honestly, I think the real solution to the problem is just leaving. That's my plan. I'm getting out of this east coast dump. Why contribute to a tax base that doesn't give two sheights about my constitutional rights?

I'm going to stop commenting in this thread after this, cause I am taking up too much space, but seriously though the defeatists are starting to irritate me.

The solution isn't to run, the solution is to win. Plain and simple.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 7:46 PM
Well, I certainly wish you all the luck in the world. You'll need it!

Ubermcoupe
10-10-2011, 7:47 PM
Posting only to show my new signature line:)

Indeed, I have spent a portion of my life pole-vaulting over mole hills... ;)

hasserl
10-10-2011, 7:53 PM
What's the Dream Act have anything to do with gun rights?

Meg on the 2A:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-13/bay-area/17190174_1_sen-john-mccain-abortion-rights-budget-gap


How does Jerry vetoing ammo registration and signing the pro-2a CCW bill make him 100% anti anyway? What's being a liberal have specifically to do with gun rights?

I'll admit I disagree with JB on practically every single issue, except he beats eMeg on the gun issue. Why would you be advocating for someone who says flat out she wants tough handgun control? I mean she just put it right out in the open there, without even trying to fake it. I seriously don't get it. If you just hate the union support and the Dream Act, then you're in the wrong sub forum. She was 110% anti-gun, take your blinders off, she couldn't have made it known anymore plainly unless she put it on her bumper stickers.

How do you figure this? In every way he has shown to be anti-gun, yet you still think he is pro-gun, this is a very nice picture of insanity.

NorCalK9.com
10-10-2011, 8:02 PM
Hang on now.

My RIGHTS ARE FREE.

Not bought and paid for.

Anyone who tries to take them will pay.

I charge quite dearly.

This notion that we have to buy our rights back by hiring lawyers to shuffle papers IS the MOTHER****ING PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.

"A bill of rights may be considered, not only as intended to give law, and assign limits to a government about to be established, but as giving information to the people. By reducing speculative truths to fundamental laws, every man of the meanest capacity and understanding may learn his own rights, and know when they are violated . . . ." – St. George Tucker (See U.S. Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook's article on this topic.) (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8710&context=expresso)

Is that loud and clear enough?

"Keep and bear" means "own and carry."

"Keep and bear" does NOT mean "own if you register and carry if some official clown will issue you a fake 'permit'."

Brown is simply proving himself to be the traitor most of us always knew he would be.

Admit it.


:chris:

I like this guy! If one person says this he's a fanatic if 10,000 people say this well now thats a different story!

NorCalK9.com
10-10-2011, 8:09 PM
Hey All,

Did brown do us a.favor? No

To Jerry Brown Cool-Aid drinkers:
We have too many people who vote liberal democrat, but proclaim their support for 2A. These people suffer from a true dichotomy of logic. Posters who vote Democrat are the problem; you are anti RKBA. Meg may not have been our dream governor, but at least we would have had a chance. Brown has never been pro RKBA and never will be; he is an ardent liberal (neo-Marxist). What do you think about the Dream Act? Barbara Boxer is not pro gun. Darrel Stienburg

Calguns, please keep fighting for us; however, don't lose sight of reality.

markm

I agree with THIS

1911 Fan
10-10-2011, 8:14 PM
In the 48 years I have lived in kalifornia civil liberties and private property rights have been violated continuously and it ain't getting better. Many of the people on this board are in denial or ignorant for whatever reason. SOOO..........when is it gunna get better genius? Yes the sky is falling depending on what one's principles are.

Smokeybehr
10-11-2011, 12:46 PM
Oh no... they were bought and paid for quite dearly with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

QFTT!

Some of you haven't read all of the threads, or some of the peripheral threads related to the cases currently on appeal. The point is that the initial court decisions were based on the ability to UOC. Now that UOC has been taken away, and LUCC is a grey option, open to the interpretation of "the 58 district attorneys", the only way forward is to either get AB144 repealed or overturned, get the Mulford Act overturned, or get Shall Issue CCW. It's all up to the courts to decide, and between the other cases that have been going through the courts since Heller and McDonald, we should see a Carry case hit SCOTUS within the next couple of terms.

1859sharps
10-11-2011, 1:06 PM
We have too many people who vote liberal democrat, but proclaim their support for 2A. These people suffer from a true dichotomy of logic. Posters who vote Democrat are the problem; you are anti RKBA.

Actually the problem is people who think this is about Democrat vs Republican. Who think Republican = pro RKBA. Thinking it's Dem vs Republican will do MORE damage then Gov Brown could ever do. This kind of thinking is in part how we got into this mess in California in the first place.

This about protecting the RKBA period. Who cares if the person doing it is a Dem or Rep.

And lest you think Republicans are a slam dunk friend of RKBAs, let me remind you who signed some of the most Anti gun laws in the last 20/30 years. Wait for it....Republican Governors of California. Between 1983 and 2011 there has been 4 Governors. 3 Republican, 1 Democrat. Two of those Republicans did as much if not more than Davis the 1 Democrat did to the RKBA and far more than Gov. Brown has to date.

The 2nd amendment isn't NOT a party issue, its a CIVIL RIGHTs issue. soon as you turn this into a party vs party issue we loose, and loose big time as evidenced by recent history.

But then I am one of those silly people who a vast majority of the time vote based on someone's threat or lack of to 2nd amendment rights. Admittedly Republicans tend to be friendlier to the RKBA, but by no means does an R after a name mean they are pro RKBAs. I have noticed that pro or at least friendly RKBA politicians tend to aline close or are at least livable in relation to my own views a lot of the time. It's not a perfect indication of how they will vote on every issue verse how I may feel/believe, but the differences aren't that big a deal and generally a lot more fixable down the road then the loss of a Civil Right.

I know this will probably fall on deaf ears, but PLEASE, PLEASE stop thinking of this as a Den vs Rep issue. Who cares if the person voting pro RKBA is black, white, brown, yellow, green, strait, gay, earthling or space alien. the goal is to protect our CIVIL RIGHTs. If we have them, everything else falls into place or is an easy fix by comparison to having to fight to regain a lost critical right.

sighere
10-11-2011, 2:19 PM
This about protecting the RKBA period. Who cares if the person doing it is a Dem or Rep.



This may well be, but I'm going to generalize for a while here. In Kaliphornia, the Dems tend to be super lib, and the Republicans tend to be liberal. So generally speaking only a republican will come close to being pro 2A. More rural states with lots of farming and hunting where there are lots of dems have blue dogs that do support 2A. A rare breed in the land of fruits and nuts!

curtisfong
10-11-2011, 2:46 PM
You live in LA County? That means you will not see a republican congressman win your district in your lifetime.

Better find some D's that are pro-rkba and civil rights.

sighere
10-11-2011, 2:55 PM
Not a chance. The loony left has a stranglehold on this place. Lawsuits are the only thing that will bring "shall issue" if ever at all. AB144 forces them to abandon the "you have UOC so you don't need CCW" argument. Don't get me wrong, they will come up with something else that should be pretty interesting reading in their amici briefs. They've got the Wild West and "blood in the streets" verbiage down as well as anyone in the business!

You live in LA County? That means you will not see a republican congressman win your district in your lifetime.

Better find some D's that are pro-rkba and civil rights.

Cali-Shooter
10-11-2011, 3:26 PM
who said the sky is falling?

Go to the thread about "There will be NO Shall Issue in CA, give it up" and you'll see one or two.

radioburning
10-11-2011, 3:52 PM
How do you figure this? In every way he has shown to be anti-gun, yet you still think he is pro-gun, this is a very nice picture of insanity.

He vetoed the ammo bill, and signed CCW standardization. Those are both pro gun, therefore you are incorrect in your assertion that "In every way he has shown to be anti-gun."

I don't even need to mention the Heller Amicus brief, the fact that he owns guns when Meg doesn't, or that when he signed 610 he commended the NRA's lobbyist for pushing the bill.

How anyone could think eMeg(known for being an anti-gun RINO) would have done any better just reeks of blind partisanship...

ErikTheRed
10-12-2011, 12:31 AM
Jerry Brown blah blah blah, Meg Whitman yada yada yada. This is like debating on whether or not the color gray is more black or more white. Please stop, its embarrassing. If you supported either one, you made a mistake as far as 2A issues are concerned. There is no other realistic way to look at it. "The lessor of two evils" doesn't even apply in this case as both are equal anti-gun progressive big-government liberal democrats, only one of them tried to hide unsuccessfully behind a big red 'R' on her chest.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-12-2011, 6:29 AM
He vetoed the ammo bill, and signed CCW standardization. Those are both pro gun, therefore you are incorrect in your assertion that "In every way he has shown to be anti-gun."

I don't even need to mention the Heller Amicus brief, the fact that he owns guns when Meg doesn't, or that when he signed 610 he commended the NRA's lobbyist for pushing the bill.

How anyone could think eMeg(known for being an anti-gun RINO) would have done any better just reeks of blind partisanship...


Yup. The way that Meg ran eBay told me all that I needed to know how she feels about the 2A.


The Raisuli

ccmc
10-12-2011, 7:07 AM
Yup. The way that Meg ran eBay told me all that I needed to know how she feels about the 2A.


The Raisuli

Which is why RKBA types that voted for Obama over McCain should have looked at Obama's statements/record while serving in the Illinois State Senate. Which is why our two newest SCOTUS justices are Sotomayor and Kagan.

I didn't follow the 2010 California races that closely as we had some important ones here in Florida, but I thought one of the republican nominees was pro 2A to the point that her husband had a CA LTC. Maybe that was Fiorina in the Senate race against Boxer. Of course having a CA LTC is no guarantee of support for the people's RKBA as Feinstein has demonstrated.

vantec08
10-12-2011, 7:24 AM
Which is why RKBA types that voted for Obama over McCain should have looked at Obama's statements/record while serving in the Illinois State Senate. Which is why our two newest SCOTUS justices are Sotomayor and Kagan.

I didn't follow the 2010 California races that closely as we had some important ones here in Florida, but I thought one of the republican nominees was pro 2A to the point that her husband had a CA LTC. Maybe that was Fiorina in the Senate race against Boxer. Of course having a CA LTC is no guarantee of support for the people's RKBA as Feinstein has demonstrated.

Feinslime has stated that she no longer has the CCW, melted her guns into a cross, and gave it to the Pope. I am sure it sits on the Popes's mantel. Right.

dieselcarpenter
10-12-2011, 10:36 AM
I can see how now under our current circumstances that we must jockey around and play our cards right with trying to win back our freedoms.

But I stand with the "not one inch" and "shall not be infringed" crowds.

All that happened in California is we lost more. The pool of freedom is only so deep and the sides get steeper the deeper you go. Take a few ladles here and there from a full pool and no one notices. Once you’re near the bottom it’s a big deal no matter how small the withdrawal, and any compromise drastically affects what you have left, and infringes into free territory.

To all those praising Brown for the ammo bill veto, we already have that as a freedom, so all his veto means is we continue with freedom, any action otherwise is a loss of freedom, it is certainly not a "win" because we didn’t gain we simply maintained. All we do here is lose.

I wonder why we were so ineffective in stopping these laws in the beginning? Why has it taken so long to begin to fight back? Is it because in our court system you must allow damage to occur first? So we must allow laws in, in order to fight for our rights when they are already garunteed and not reserved for the states to decide?

I just learned a lot about the gun control act in the 60's, that was 20 years before I was born, where were all you geezers on here when that was going on? I was youngster when the assault weapons ban came to the feds and California, where was everybody then? Where was the "silent majority"? (already fled the state if you ask me, all thats left is the lefty dregs and a few stragglers stuck with family homes and jobs)

But here we are, and with excruciating time and money spent fighting these laws that at this point just simply "are", we watch a slow slog and siege of "they pass more laws faster then we can defeat them in court"

And somehow I doubt we will get some sweeping dismissal of a whole batch of laws, it will be piece meal for years, and I will die of natural causes before I can carry a single six on my hip into town, walk around with my kel-tec PF-9 or Judge in the waist band in Wal-Mart in Marin county, and grab my sgl-21 by the grip and let 30+ fly at the range or on Public land, in what was once the great state of California, now just a multicultural, dividing pot, on the left cost as it tries to create its green socialistic utopia where no one can hurt you with an evil gun, and pets, illegals, and endangered species are worth more then the life of a conservative caucasian male.

I spent some time in Nevada and Idaho recently and felt so ashamed of my birth state, but I did see that the as California goes so goes the nation, mostly because we flee here and then vote for the same liberal communism and green BS that we hated here, because were too stupid to see that’s what caused our state to fail. I’d put the "free states 20-25 years behind us but the pace is nonetheless slower. Farmers in Idaho now have to have state approved manure plans and must meter the manure they intend spread for fertilizer, as an example of where their headed. Guns ares till ok but freedom is freedom in whatever form.

Maybe weel suceed here, but the loses seem to out way the gains, and I just dont have that much time on this earth to try and take back what should have never been taken so easily.

PS
We might as well just give this place back to Mexico as it is, after all, I woke up the other morning and realized that we have experienced the largest bloodless invasion and occupation by a neighboring country the world has ever seen without a single shot being fired in open conflict.(excluding cartels)

Once this is Mexico we can just get Fast&Furious Holder to Gun Run us some AR's and AK’s and we need not fight with Sacramento, am I right felllas!!!!! :43:


Thats my .02 for this round.

donw
10-12-2011, 10:51 AM
no...it certainly is NOT the end of the world because of the goofy legislation signed by JB...but it's still nearly 2 years until it goes into effect...a LOT can change between now and then.

dieselcarpenter:

that seems to be a pretty good summation of how things are going.

in the early 60's i was in the army doing my tour in a far away SE Asian peninsula.

when i returned, i returned to a world you describe, basically...it was not a time when people went into a panic when they saw some one with a rifle rack in their truck with a rifle in it or a pistol in their hip holster...in the contrary, it was not uncommon at all to see someone with a rifle in their truck, even in the cities and towns.

that was before the pre-gang, anti-American, pro-illegal immigrant culture began to thrive.

i certainly understand why it is desirable to NOT have gangs that are heavily armed, or armed at all, for that matter but what i DON"T understand is why our so-called "Legislators" want to forbid me from having a semi-automatic that has a detachable magazine if i am not a criminal or commit(ed) crimes?

insofar as the "Illegal immigrant invasion"? there are far too many who don't realize/recognize/care that the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago in 1852(?) divided Mexico and the United States INTO TWO SEPARATE NATIONS with both nations being signatories.

the illegal immigration is a debate for another time, another place, though.

in the end...it will all disintegrate into the oblivion we call "history".

Quser.619
10-12-2011, 11:11 AM
While many have made excellent points about CA Republicans... especially the past Governors - Schwarzenegger - cough, cough. Which party wrote all of the anti-2A laws? Which party provided the majority votes that landed those bills on the Governor's desk?

The Republicans have little blame to share right now, they are the minority & have been for decades. Sure their Governors signed extremely stupid laws, but laws that arrived on their desk were written & pushed for by which Party again?

Explain to me where a Republican legislature would currently push for the ammo laws, banning of open carry or long gun registration? If you answer involves going back in time 40+ years ago, that was then, this is now.

I've no interest in promoting one political party over another. I have my personal opinions, yours may differ. But the argument that Brown actually only sold us out for 3 out of 4, whereas Meg would have gone the full 4 of 4 is weak tea.


Now let's drop this political BS & get back to work.


I'm just hoping that those that favor Democrats will be able to see that its the legislature that needs changing to prevent these laws from seeing the Governor's desk. Lord knows this state would only benefit from gridlock in CA Legislature for a decade or two - while we begin cleaning up in the courts...

However, if you can't do that, for the very least please hold your nose & don't vote for Obama in 2012. Because we cannot afford another Kagan or Soutermayor on the SCOTUS!

Wherryj
10-12-2011, 12:20 PM
I agree. I do love how the fokls in the know take a lemon and turn it into lemonade. I'm serious. You change your battle plans or have contingencies for a lot of these types of votes/laws enacted... We got some smart folks on our side! :) Give em hell CGF!

(@taperxy - postwhore - selling your mallard decoys). :)

That is primarily due to the fact that the GOOD lawyers go into legal practice. The bad lawyers go into politics.

Aside from the fact that we're in the right, we have them "outgunned" when it comes to intelligence. I'd put Hoffman, Kilmer, Davis, et al. against CA's politicians any day of the week.

Fot
10-12-2011, 12:49 PM
Personally I am really glad he vetoed the ammo bill.. I have faith in the Calguns Foundation winning more and more court cases restoring our lost rights. Made a small donation today, Been awhile since my last one..