PDA

View Full Version : Gov. Brown is no fool


Pages : [1] 2

Purple K
10-11-2011, 1:00 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.

mossy
10-11-2011, 1:03 PM
umm ok

CalBear
10-11-2011, 1:03 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.
I wouldn't read into it quite that much. Brown's 2A position is basically understand and support, but with "common sense" gun control like the type we have here in CA. The UOC bill was signed because the police chiefs convinced him and he went along with long gun reg because the HG system is already in place. Judge a man by his actions, not by suppositions.

rogervzv
10-11-2011, 1:04 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.

Wrong. Brown is 100% against gun rights. Those of you who think that the ban on unloaded open carry will lead to a "shall issue" regime in California for carry permits are simply wrong too. All of Brown's actions evidence a deep hostility to gun rights in common with all Democrats. And these people can pass 20 anti-gun laws for every one that we get overturned or weakened in the courts, which is exactly what is happening.

Keep voting Democrat and you will destroy what little gun rights we have left in California.

tacticalcity
10-11-2011, 1:05 PM
Wow...just, wow. You guys sure do see what you want to see. While Brown could certainly be worse, he is no friend to gun rights. He just passed legislation that we have been fighting tooth and nail in this state for as long as I have been into guns (registration of long guns) and you sing his praises.

voiceofreason
10-11-2011, 1:05 PM
Not sure I agree, but I'll take the lemonade if we can get the sugar and water to add to the lemons.

Crom
10-11-2011, 1:09 PM
I wouldn't read into it quite that much. Brown's 2A position is basically understand and support, but with "common sense" gun control like the type we have here in CA. The UOC bill was signed because the police chiefs convinced him and he went along with long gun reg because the HG system is already in place. Judge a man by his actions, not by suppositions.

x1000 Could not agree more.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 1:09 PM
:facepalm:

I highly doubt this. The courts are not friendly to us and there is no way to say they will rule in our favor. Brown is anti 2A. It's that simple.

Tier One Arms
10-11-2011, 1:23 PM
Jerry brown is no friend of the 2A, no need to sugar coat the truth.

a1c
10-11-2011, 1:26 PM
But don't you know? The world is divided into two, distinct, simple camps: the libs and the pro-2As.

And obviously, Brown must be a lib, therefore anti-2A.

Black and white politics. They make a lot of sense to idiots and drunks.

Chosen_1
10-11-2011, 1:28 PM
Gov. Brown is no fool...

Maybe, but I know for sure who is.

:facepalm:

SteveH
10-11-2011, 1:29 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.

:facepalm:

Apocalypsenerd
10-11-2011, 1:33 PM
But don't you know? The world is divided into two, distinct, simple camps: the libs and the pro-2As.

And obviously, Brown must be a lib, therefore anti-2A.

Black and white politics. They make a lot of sense to idiots and drunks.

I agree.

Anyone who took an unemotional look at the bills signed and not signed would be unable to claim Brown is completely anti-2a or pro-2a. Just because someone doesn't 100% agree with you, doesn't mean they 100% disagree.

Purple K
10-11-2011, 1:37 PM
Time will tell

1859sharps
10-11-2011, 1:38 PM
Keep voting Democrat and you will destroy what little gun rights we have left in California.

as will thinking this is a den vs rep issue.

simply being a republican does NOT make one a friend of the 2nd. thinking that it does has done more harm then good. Since 1983 there have been 4 govenors, 3 R, 1 D. Of those 3, 2 did as much damage to your RKBA as did the 1 democrat, Davis. So far, while not ideal by any means, Gov Brown hasn't done any significant damage and maybe even (intentional or not. open to debate I guess) done us some "favors". But regardless he hasn't done any significant damage to your RKBAs. So far a lot less than George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger did. and they were both Republican.

This isn't a party issue, it's a Civil Rights issue. please treat it as such and stop making it a party issue. personally I want to win. Don't you?

FullMetalJacket
10-11-2011, 1:40 PM
As someone who started out HIGHLY skeptical of Jerry Brown, let me just say this:

I'd much rather he vetoed the ammunition bill and signed off on banning UOC (which is all but meaningless for defensive purposes, anyway) than the other way around. Practicing UOC is nothing but a political statement; access and affordability of ammunition is an integral part of our favorite passtime and 2nd Amendment freedoms.

I don't know whether the UOC activity has harmed (via public opinion) or helped (via pending court cases about the right to "bear") us, but we need to keep our eyes on the prize: concealed, loaded carry.

ivsamhell
10-11-2011, 1:40 PM
Keep voting Democrat and you will destroy what little gun rights we have left in California.

The republican choice was vehemently antigun...........

Super Spy
10-11-2011, 1:48 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.

I hope you remembered your flame proof suit today making comments like that here as riled up as everyone one is. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I hope you're right.

Purple K
10-11-2011, 2:08 PM
I hope you remembered your flame proof suit today making comments like that here as riled up as everyone one is. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I hope you're right.

I'm a Firefighter/EMT in an Oil Refinery, these little flames are nothing compared to what I'm used to.

OleCuss
10-11-2011, 2:18 PM
I don't think JB's actions on Sunday are enough to fully characterize his position on the RBKA. He is certainly not a staunch friend of our RKBA, but I'm not yet convinced that he is an implacable foe, either.

At this point I think that the smart bet is that if the legislature sends him anti-RKBA legislation he will likely sign the bill unless it is clearly doomed and futile.

He is not going to take political hits in order to protect our RKBA - which is an argument for keeping the visibility on the streets nice and low. I'm betting that the recent Cupertino shootings did not help our cause at all, and neither did the UOC demonstrations.

But if it is clear to him that an anti-RKBA bill will be subject to litigation and will clearly fail as a result, he just might veto that bill.

So he signed a pro-RKBA bill because it was just cleaning up the language and did not make a legally substantive change.

He vetoed an amendment to a bill which had already been ruled unconstitutional and is likely to be definitively smacked down in the foreseeable future.

He signed the unconstitutional AB144, but the ban on UOC is not going to cost him politically. It will salve the pride of some votes he is going to need in the upcoming budget battles. Understand, because of the Republican near-irrelevance in this state he really doesn't need to accomodate conservative/libertarian concerns.

This is already getting too long so I won't delve any further.

But on RKBA issues I consider Brown to be anything but our friend - and I don't think he is deliberately giving us great fodder for court cases. But he is not an implacable foe, either - he is an opportunist fascist politician who is much more concerned about his legacy as interpreted by his fellow fascists than anything that you and I might treasure.

If we want to be relevant to Brown and others of his ilk, we need to be active within the NRA, the Republican party, and the Democrat party. We have to be legally and politically relevant since our civil rights don't really matter all that much to those in power.

Smokeybehr
10-11-2011, 2:20 PM
I'm a Firefighter/EMT in an Oil Refinery, these little flames are nothing compared to what I'm used to.

Meh. At least you can walk away if it gets too hot. We have to whip out the Shake and Bakes and turn into a group of baked 'taters on the side of a hill. :D

rt66paul
10-11-2011, 2:22 PM
Wrong. Brown is 100% against gun rights. Those of you who think that the ban on unloaded open carry will lead to a "shall issue" regime in California for carry permits are simply wrong too. All of Brown's actions evidence a deep hostility to gun rights in common with all Democrats. And these people can pass 20 anti-gun laws for every one that we get overturned or weakened in the courts, which is exactly what is happening.

Keep voting Democrat and you will destroy what little gun rights we have left in California.

Not all Democrats at all. Many republicans are against or will side with the majority when it comes down to campaign funding.You have to open your eyes and see who is giving money to all election campaigns. These are the same people that have pushed gun control through in England, australia, canada, on and on. These people run the world and run the UN. It will happen some day, let's hope and pray that we can keep it alive here as long as possable. We all know what is needed here so that our grand children and their grandchildren will be able to get their hands on them when they need to. Just do it! put away some on family land and keep the maps under lock and key. They could need them sooner rather than later.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 2:29 PM
Okay, just some thoughts on Jerry Brown.

1. Signed Amicus in favor of 2A. Check.

2. Signed AB610 to standardize 12050 PC. Check.

3. Vetoed bill to register ammo. Check.

As others have already said, long gun registration doesn't go into effect until 2014, that gives our side time to get it ruled unconstitutional. AB144 made carrying an unloaded handgun illegal, an issue that stood in the way of a ruling in our favor in Peruta. Now they're going to have to come up with an alternative to that which, in their mind satisfies, the right to bear arms. So what could that possibly be ?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the bad side to this yet.

ivsamhell
10-11-2011, 2:32 PM
Okay, just some thoughts on Jerry Brown.

1. Signed Amicus in favor of 2A. Check.

2. Signed AB610 to standardize 12050 PC. Check.

3. Vetoed bill to register ammo. Check.

As others have already said, long gun registration doesn't go into effect until 2014, that gives our side time to get it ruled unconstitutional. AB144 made carrying an unloaded handgun illegal, an issue that stood in the way of a ruling in our favor in Peruta. Now they're going to have to come up with an alternative to that which, in their mind satisfies, the right to bear arms. So what could that possibly be ?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the bad side to this yet.

It seems our side already has more on their plate than resources allow to fight, now there's more.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 2:34 PM
It seems our side already has more on their plate than resources allow to fight, now there's more.

It's irrelevant right now.

MolonLabe2008
10-11-2011, 2:35 PM
The dreamers keep dreaming.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 2:38 PM
It's irrelevant right now.

How? This shows the anti's that Brown will sign their crap. That will just add to the crap we have to fight. They can add crap at a much greater rate than we can get rid of. It is completely relevant.

curtisfong
10-11-2011, 2:42 PM
anti-gunners care more about appearance than effective law.

Why not sign useless laws if it distracts them from worrying about whether the really harmful laws are vetoed?

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 2:43 PM
How? This shows the anti's that Brown will sign their crap. That will just add to the crap we have to fight. They can add crap at a much greater rate than we can get rid of. It is completely relevant.

As long as it's insignificant crap, who cares.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 2:45 PM
As long as it's insignificant crap, who cares.

Because insignificant crap still has consequences. The UOC ban still strips people of one of their means of carry. It still takes time, money and effort to fight it. Stopping these bills before they become law is much more effective than spending time and money on "insignificant crap" that can be spent fighting the AW ban or the handgun roster.

OleCuss
10-11-2011, 2:46 PM
Okay, just some thoughts on Jerry Brown.

1. Signed Amicus in favor of 2A. Check.

2. Signed AB610 to standardize 12050 PC. Check.

3. Vetoed bill to register ammo. Check.

As others have already said, long gun registration doesn't go into effect until 2014, that gives our side time to get it ruled unconstitutional. AB144 made carrying an unloaded handgun illegal, an issue that stood in the way of a ruling in our favor in Peruta. Now they're going to have to come up with an alternative to that which, in their mind satisfies, the right to bear arms. So what could that possibly be ?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the bad side to this yet.

Even I am not quite that happy with recent events!

But over the years JB has done even more than you've noted above.

So far as his recent signings of anti-RKBA bills? I view that more as someone who worries more about how his troops look than how they fight. The intent is to do such and so - the fact that the effect may be the opposite is irrelevant to the intent.

But then, again, the fascist concept is that if your thoughts are pure and you are attempting to use government to bludgeon the populace into adherence to the approved thought processes - then everything will turn out right eventually. You may have to violate civil rights in the process, but in the end there will be more rights than if you hadn't.

In someways the approach looks almost like the symbolism is more important than the function but it is a bit deeper than that.

So a 12 year old is not competent to go and get a tan. But they are perfectly competent to choose to get an injected vaccination which could, indeed lead to severe complications. Fundamentally bizarre to say that they are competent in the one situation but not in the other - but in the fascist mind the one is a desired action and therefore they are competent to consent and the other action is not desired so they are incompetent to consent.

It's asinine, but it's how Sacramento works.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 2:49 PM
The dreamers keep dreaming.

Everyone keeps saying Chess, not Checkers. Have you ever sacrificed a pawn to divert the attention of your opponent, while you move your more important pieces for the win ?

These insignificant victories are like that.

ivsamhell
10-11-2011, 2:50 PM
As long as it's insignificant crap, who cares.

it becomes a stalemate, we are busy fighting new legislation instead of advancing.

ivsamhell
10-11-2011, 2:54 PM
Everyone keeps saying Chess, not Checkers. Have you ever sacrificed a pawn to divert the attention of your opponent, while you move your more important pieces for the win ?

These insignificant victories are like that.

It isn't a board game, there are no finite number of pawns.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 2:56 PM
Everyone keeps saying Chess, not Checkers. Have you ever sacrificed a pawn to divert the attention of your opponent, while you move your more important pieces for the win ?

These insignificant victories are like that.

The difference is we have to make a million moves to take out one of their pawns while in the mean time they keep flooding the board with new pawns.

We are not on equal footing with the antis. They can pile as many bills as possible in our way while it takes us years to kill just one.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 2:59 PM
Because insignificant crap still has consequences. The UOC ban still strips people of one of their means of carry. It still takes time, money and effort to fight it. Stopping these bills before they become law is much more effective than spending time and money on "insignificant crap" that can be spent fighting the AW ban or the handgun roster.

Ah, but here's the beauty of that, when we win, we get that money back. This is a revolution of sorts, and we are fighting a battle of attrition. To date, we have made significant progress in ways that people didn't imagine a decade ago. And these little skirmishes are just part of the war.

No one ever won all of the battles, but we have to stay focused on winning the war.

Because of the complacency of our grandparents, parents, and us, we allowed this to devolve into what we have to fight now. We are in a cultural battle to win back our independence. We can't complicate this by fighting amongst ourselves.

BAGunner
10-11-2011, 3:00 PM
Now they're going to have to come up with an alternative to that which, in their mind satisfies, the right to bear arms. So what could that possibly be ?


It would well be LUCC (locked unloaded concealed carry)

OleCuss
10-11-2011, 3:01 PM
The difference is we have to make a million moves to take out one of their pawns while in the mean time they keep flooding the board with new pawns.

We are not on equal footing with the antis. They can pile as many bills as possible in our way while it takes us years to kill just one.

That has been mostly true but may not be true in the future.

What is going to start happening is that as we get a few more precedents under our belts we'll be able to start going to the relevant court and quickly and easily get injunctions to stop much of the stupidity.

We'll never stop all of the stupidity but it will get better. We'll even make some gains which will be recognized as such by just about everyone. But the fight will never really end - because stupid never ends.

But we have to get the precedents. That's why cases like Richards, Peruta, Nordyke, etc. are important.

Edit: Ab427 is actually an example of how the stupid will slow down. We have a relevant winning case which still has not finished all its appeals, but it was enough to get JB to kill AB427 - and it is likely not going to come back.

radioburning
10-11-2011, 3:03 PM
The UOC ban still strips people of one of their means of carry. It still takes time, money and effort to fight it.

Who says anyone's gonna fight for UOC? I could give a rat's aasz about UOC if throwing it under the bus gives us a "CCW checkmate."

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 3:04 PM
Ah, but here's the beauty of that, when we win, we get that money back. This is a revolution of sorts, and we are fighting a battle of attrition. To date, we have made significant progress in ways that people didn't imagine a decade ago. And these little skirmishes are just part of the war.

No one ever won all of the battles, but we have to stay focused on winning the war.

Because of the complacency of our grandparents, parents, and us, we allowed this to devolve into what we have to fight now. We are in a cultural battle to win back our independence. We can't complicate this by fighting amongst ourselves.

We beat AB962 but they just reproposed it. It got vetoed this time. We have an uphill battle until the SCOTUS grants us a ruling that is actually strong enough to stop it. Even then we will have to fight these "insignificant" laws. The fact is we are the under dog with less power than the gov. The gov is owned by the antis. The more we win the better but we cannot compete against the machine.

I am not saying we give up but we cannot minimalize these laws. Getting over confident will set us back. Everyone was confident the latest Nordyke ruling was going to be big for us but we were sorely disappointed.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 3:06 PM
Who says anyone's gonna fight for UOC? I could give a rat's aasz about UOC if throwing it under the bus gives us a "CCW checkmate."

What if it doesn't? You act like it has already happened but I expect you to be shocked when we lose again. The only court that will rule in our favor on LTC is the SCOTUS.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 3:08 PM
Even I am not quite that happy with recent events!

But over the years JB has done even more than you've noted above.

So far as his recent signings of anti-RKBA bills? I view that more as someone who worries more about how his troops look than how they fight. The intent is to do such and so - the fact that the effect may be the opposite is irrelevant to the intent.

But then, again, the fascist concept is that if your thoughts are pure and you are attempting to use government to bludgeon the populace into adherence to the approved thought processes - then everything will turn out right eventually. You may have to violate civil rights in the process, but in the end there will be more rights than if you hadn't.

In someways the approach looks almost like the symbolism is more important than the function but it is a bit deeper than that.

So a 12 year old is not competent to go and get a tan. But they are perfectly competent to choose to get an injected vaccination which could, indeed lead to severe complications. Fundamentally bizarre to say that they are competent in the one situation but not in the other - but in the fascist mind the one is a desired action and therefore they are competent to consent and the other action is not desired so they are incompetent to consent.

It's asinine, but it's how Sacramento works.

I don't consider Brown our Savior by any stretch of the imagination. But I also don't believe that Brown will be our undoing. Our fight in California is not the only battle for Independence, but it is our fight and becoming disillusioned only serves the anti's.

I'm not saying that I'm not concerned, but I do have faith in those who are fighting the battles in the courts. All you and I have to do is provide the logistics, and let them fire the well placed shots.

CalBear
10-11-2011, 3:08 PM
Okay, just some thoughts on Jerry Brown.
I'd like to reassess some of his actions.

1. Signed Amicus in favor of 2A. Check.
This is true. BUT, remember the content is more important than the fact that he wrote the amicus. In the amicus, he said California essentially leads the nation in common sense gun laws, such as the safe handgun registry.

2. Signed AB610 to standardize 12050 PC. Check.

3. Vetoed bill to register ammo. Check.
Jerry is not anti gun. I keep telling people that. He does have some understanding of the Second Amendment. It's no surprise to me that he vetoed these two. #2 was probably a no-brainer to him. It's just fair. #3 he vetoed because it's still in litigation. He's shown a reluctance to interfere with the courts too much.

As others have already said, long gun registration doesn't go into effect until 2014, that gives our side time to get it ruled unconstitutional. AB144 made carrying an unloaded handgun illegal, an issue that stood in the way of a ruling in our favor in Peruta. Now they're going to have to come up with an alternative to that which, in their mind satisfies, the right to bear arms. So what could that possibly be ?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the bad side to this yet.
The suggestion that the bills he signed have their upsides or "outs" is true. I agree with you. What I cannot get on board with however, is the HUGE leap that JB signed these bills to secretly help us. I totally disagree with that assertion. That we have potential outs for these speaks more to our progress in the courts than JB's position on gun laws.

I said above that JB isn't anti gun. I still believe that. Anti gun politicians veto bills like SB 610 and sign bills like the ammo bill just to stick it to gun owners, regardless of fairness or litigation. Several urban democrats did just that in the legislature this session. JB owns guns and gets that we have certain rights. Where most Cal Gunners and JB split is on gun control laws. JB believes the state has much more authority to enact gun control laws, and he believes they have far more positive effect than we do. He's a believer in the "common sense" gun laws mentioned in his amicus. We believe those laws are typically ineffective, if not unconstitutional.

ivsamhell
10-11-2011, 3:09 PM
Who says anyone's gonna fight for UOC? I could give a rat's aasz about UOC if throwing it under the bus gives us a "CCW checkmate."

UOC was never a viable option, wasn't this angle already argued and struck down in the last nordyke?

taperxz
10-11-2011, 3:17 PM
As an independent thinker i can tell you this

JB may not give us everything we want, what politician can? Some of you who claim to know the stripes of "moonbeam" call him an enemy of the 2A. You really need to stop listening to Mommys and Daddys of the colorful psychadelic 70's.

He IS the governor of CA! What do you expect? unzip his suit and watch Ron Paul jump out and say here i am i tricked you all?

This dynamic state has many issues, more than most countries. For instance if Sarah Palin (who i want to go hunting with) were running this state we would have all the gun rights in the world! Problem is, we would be eating our dead, and working for minimum wage. No one could shoot their guns because no one could afford ammo! Most of our land would be raped for profit and i guarantee SoCal would have NO freaking water flowing from the Great State Of Northern California!

its a five letter word. T-H-I-N-K

torquefliteterror
10-11-2011, 3:20 PM
I think Brown showed where he was comming from when he issued his statement on retired law enfrocement and retention of registered "assault weapons". I think that confiscation is on their minds down the line. he issued that opinion on his last day as governer with no fan fare whatsoever.

We should all acknowledge though ,that we have come to a new era of law, where what the people vote for and what legislators may pass is all fair game for the courts.
prop 187, prop 8 are some examples. there is no will of the people anymore, it has become the will of the interpretation of a judge.

It may work in our favor for once or twice. long guns reg may fall to Heller, long gun reg doesnt bother me as they already have 4473. if we were really free of govt intrusion. there would be no requirment to 4473. there would be no NFA for that matter. hopefully dros will fall due to becoming a tax. the most significant would be that we get concealed carry rights established for what good our guns if they are empty on your hip or stored in a locked container.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 3:21 PM
I'd like to reassess some of his actions.


This is true. BUT, remember the content is more important than the fact that he wrote the amicus. In the amicus, he said California essentially leads the nation in common sense gun laws, such as the safe handgun registry.


Jerry is not anti gun. I keep telling people that. He does have some understanding of the Second Amendment. It's no surprise to me that he vetoed these two. #2 was probably a no-brainer to him. It's just fair. #3 he vetoed because it's still in litigation. He's shown a reluctance to interfere with the courts too much.


The suggestion that the bills he signed have their upsides or "outs" is true. I agree with you. What I cannot get on board with however, is the HUGE leap that JB signed these bills to secretly help us. I totally disagree with that assertion. That we have potential outs for these speaks more to our progress in the courts than JB's position on gun laws.

I said above that JB isn't anti gun. I still believe that. Anti gun politicians veto bills like SB 610 and sign bills like the ammo bill just to stick it to gun owners, regardless of fairness or litigation. Several urban democrats did just that in the legislature this session. JB owns guns and gets that we have certain rights. Where most Cal Gunners and JB split is on gun control laws. JB believes the state has much more authority to enact gun control laws, and he believes they have far more positive effect than we do. He's a believer in the "common sense" gun laws mentioned in his amicus. We believe those laws are typically ineffective, if not unconstitutional.

Ok, but the point I'm making is that whatever real or hypothetical way Jerry leans, what he has done hasn't really hurt us. True, they are a nuisance, but we're not hurt.

For the UOCers, this is my thoughts on carrying. LUCC if you must. Be aware of your surroundings, avoid trouble spots, and keep your head on a swivel, maintaining situational awareness. Do this until our side wins "Shall Issue".

Gene predicts "Shall Issue" will come to California no later than June 2013. I'm inclined to believe that. Have faith and continue giving our legal team your support, encouragement and financial backing if you can. That's all I'm saying.

taperxz
10-11-2011, 3:22 PM
I think Brown showed where he was comming from when he issued his statement on retired law enfrocement and retention of registered "assault weapons". I think that confiscation is on their minds down the line. he issued that opinion on his last day as governer with no fan fare whatsoever.

We should all acknowledge though ,that we have come to a new era of law, where what the people vote for and what legislators may pass is all fair game for the courts.
prop 187, prop 8 are some examples. there is no will of the people anymore, it has become the will of the interpretation of a judge.

It may work in our favor for once or twice. long guns reg may fall to Heller, long gun reg doesnt bother me as they already have 4473. if we were really free of govt intrusion. there would be no requirment to 4473. there would be no NFA for that matter. hopefully dros will fall due to becoming a tax. the most significant would be that we get concealed carry rights established for what good our guns if they are empty on your hip or stored in a locked container.

NO! this is a good thing he did for law abiding gun owners in CA! You are misinterpreting the intent.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 3:25 PM
NO! this is a good thing he did for law abiding gun owners in CA! You are misinterpreting the intent.

You know this for a fact? Or are you reaching for anything to back up your claim that Brown is some super secret ninja really trying to help the 2A?

taperxz
10-11-2011, 3:32 PM
You know this for a fact? Or are you reaching for anything to back up your claim that Brown is some super secret ninja really trying to help the 2A?

This is really simple to answer, basically if a retired PO is retired, he is no longer a PO. Thus the weapon he bought specifically for duty should not be retained. He is now just like every other citizen who must abide by the laws set forth in the state.

It takes away the "special class".

Really guys, do you even know why they call him "moonbeam"? Its not because he was "out there either" He has a ton of insight to things. Thats why he got the name "moonbeam"

gbp
10-11-2011, 3:34 PM
I am having a hard time believing how many people read the ""Powder Dry"" message from him and believe it is some kind of subliminal message to gun owners to rise up and he will eventually side with us. (My take on that message is 100% in the opposite direction)

all they are doing is defeating us by attrition. they know it has worked in the past and will work again. how does anybody think we got to where we are today??

JM$0.02

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 3:36 PM
This is really simple to answer, basically if a retired PO is retired, he is no longer a PO. Thus the weapon he bought specifically for duty should not be retained. He is now just like every other citizen who must abide by the laws set forth in the state.

It takes away the "special class".

Really guys, do you even know why they call him "moonbeam"? Its not because he was "out there either" He has a ton of insight to things. Thats why he got the name "moonbeam"

Yeah, I know that's why he did it.

vantec08
10-11-2011, 3:37 PM
as will thinking this is a den vs rep issue.

simply being a republican does NOT make one a friend of the 2nd. thinking that it does has done more harm then good. Since 1983 there have been 4 govenors, 3 R, 1 D. Of those 3, 2 did as much damage to your RKBA as did the 1 democrat, Davis. So far, while not ideal by any means, Gov Brown hasn't done any significant damage and maybe even (intentional or not. open to debate I guess) done us some "favors". But regardless he hasn't done any significant damage to your RKBAs. So far a lot less than George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger did. and they were both Republican.

This isn't a party issue, it's a Civil Rights issue. please treat it as such and stop making it a party issue. personally I want to win. Don't you?

No problem. We'll just keep the electing the Boxers, Feinslimes, Bloombergs, Daleys, Vince Grays, Chuckie Schumers, and .... and .... and.. .. . Sure. Right.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 3:37 PM
I am having a hard time believing how many people read the ""Powder Dry"" message from him and believe it is some kind of subliminal message to gun owners to rise up and he will eventually side with us. (My take on that message is 100% in the opposite direction)

all they are doing is defeating us by attrition. they know it has worked in the past and will work again. how does anybody think we got to where we are today??

JM$0.02

People believe that because they read it as if the message was for them. The message wasn't for the public, it was for the legislators that wanted to pass an ammo ban.

I also agree with what you said.

taperxz
10-11-2011, 3:44 PM
Let's keep our powder dry on amendments until the court case runs it's course

It could also mean, "Mr. De Leon, please stop with the negligent discharges" Can we please let the courts handle this? This is over the states head!

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 3:48 PM
As long as it's insignificant crap, who cares.

If Long Gun Registration had been vetoed I'd be throwing drunken parties! To be dissapointed on only one bill... Not so bad for California.

Sure beats the year we got Microstamping and Lead Ammo in one... Thanks Republican Ahnold....

-Gene

Werewolf1021
10-11-2011, 3:54 PM
As an independent thinker i can tell you this

JB may not give us everything we want, what politician can? Some of you who claim to know the stripes of "moonbeam" call him an enemy of the 2A. You really need to stop listening to Mommys and Daddys of the colorful psychadelic 70's.

He IS the governor of CA! What do you expect? unzip his suit and watch Ron Paul jump out and say here i am i tricked you all?

This dynamic state has many issues, more than most countries. For instance if Sarah Palin (who i want to go hunting with) were running this state we would have all the gun rights in the world! Problem is, we would be eating our dead, and working for minimum wage. No one could shoot their guns because no one could afford ammo! Most of our land would be raped for profit and i guarantee SoCal would have NO freaking water flowing from the Great State Of Northern California!

its a five letter word. T-H-I-N-K

You act as if this is a bad thing.... :D

As for Jerry, I sincerely doubt he signed those bills just to give us litigation power. Reading his reason for signing SB 819 makes that abundantly clear to me.

trevilli
10-11-2011, 3:55 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.
I've been waiting for this post. "You don't get the game. He's really doing this to HELP US". I wish I believed that.

I said the following back in Sept:

Based on the number of Brown apologists we have on calguns.net, I predict that even when he refuses to veto any of the bills, people will be saying that we all are not smart enough to see the "real" strategy. People will be saying, well, of course the laws were unconstitutional, but Gov Brown signed them so we could get to SCOTUS faster, and that if we weren't so dense, we'd see that Brown is actually helping us gun owners by signing these bills. I don't feel qualified to comment on the expediency of that strategy, but that is how I believe his decision to sign the bills will be explained to us lesser people who aren't in the know.

Gene "quoted this for posterity" as he said "one of us will look like an idiot."

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7154461&postcount=1522

Skidmark
10-11-2011, 4:03 PM
I wouldn't read into it quite that much. Brown's 2A position is basically understand and support, but with "common sense" gun control like the type we have here in CA. The UOC bill was signed because the police chiefs convinced him and he went along with long gun reg because the HG system is already in place. Judge a man by his actions, not by suppositions.

This makes the best sense of Sunday night's signatures I've yet heard.

kf6tac
10-11-2011, 4:04 PM
The suggestion that the bills he signed have their upsides or "outs" is true. I agree with you. What I cannot get on board with however, is the HUGE leap that JB signed these bills to secretly help us. I totally disagree with that assertion. That we have potential outs for these speaks more to our progress in the courts than JB's position on gun laws.

I said above that JB isn't anti gun. I still believe that. Anti gun politicians veto bills like SB 610 and sign bills like the ammo bill just to stick it to gun owners, regardless of fairness or litigation. Several urban democrats did just that in the legislature this session. JB owns guns and gets that we have certain rights. Where most Cal Gunners and JB split is on gun control laws. JB believes the state has much more authority to enact gun control laws, and he believes they have far more positive effect than we do. He's a believer in the "common sense" gun laws mentioned in his amicus. We believe those laws are typically ineffective, if not unconstitutional.

You just saved me from typing the exact same thing :) Go Bears.

KAPCO
10-11-2011, 5:08 PM
I believe he is a Sheep in Wolves clothing, he caters to Big union Mob Bosses (like most) and was purchased by China to get a agenda done. I see this as infringment and while CA is broke and there is a stupid 400k estimate of the additional costs to tax payers why dont they multiply that by 10 for a real #?. Lies and Marxist policy are allways been his belief. If you consider a Marxist a friend of the USA you need to live in China for a few years. Pollution so thick you cant breath. Outsource all our work to the dirtiest Nation on the Planet, at the hands of C.A.R.B. and the E.P.A.(not in my back yard) Fire them and we may start to heal from the lack of work here. Stop paying farmers NOT to farm thier land while the world is starving? Again Politics and the sick EPA.I only envied Brown once, he had Linda Ronstat. He was a looser Gov then and I see many have short memories.
I know quite a few cops who say the day they request us to take the guns from law abiding citizens is the day we put our badges on thier Chiefs desk. It is a suicide mission as one cop stated to many others who agreed.
Englands people say give us back our guns! As home invasion is on the rise they are left helpless, at least for the first time in history the Brit Cops carry guns instead of a bat. I see Great Britan struggle with arming of the civilan, I also see them say, America! Dont be stupid like us. Hold on to your Constitutions 2 amend. Quite a depressing story that the Media refuses to show. Youtube has the story from ametuer reporters.

I dont see anything good in new Laws to be drawn up and another branch of goverment tosupport the New laws? Lawyer's make plenty of money as do the politicans. I believe because of this long guns will sell out in a few weeks in CA. Gov Brown is spurring a short term buying frenzy in CA like never seen before. Record sales again.
I wish those darn guns would stop walking around and shooting people? I suppose Nuncy Pelozzy would understand that because afterall you have to read it after you pass it to find out what it says? Her own words over obummercare. Who balances her checkbook? Oh the mob, I forgot.

Reasoning in legislation that infringes on the USA is what I dont understand, what is it you are trying to say? This is a second Gov's chance for him, he lost before why is he good now? I am totally confused here.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 5:14 PM
If Long Gun Registration had been vetoed I'd be throwing drunken parties! To be dissapointed on only one bill... Not so bad for California.

Sure beats the year we got Microstamping and Lead Ammo in one... Thanks Republican Ahnold....

-Gene

I agree that, had the long gun registration been vetoed, that would be a good thing, but it wasn't, and in two years, if things don't change, it will be law. So what do you have up your sleeve that will make this effectively a moot point ? You know, like microstamping. Is passing long gun registration going to prove to be a lesson in futility for the legislators that voted for it ?

hasserl
10-11-2011, 5:36 PM
But don't you know? The world is divided into two, distinct, simple camps: the libs and the pro-2As.

And obviously, Brown must be a lib, therefore anti-2A.

Black and white politics. They make a lot of sense to idiots and drunks.

Which one are you?

hasserl
10-11-2011, 5:37 PM
The republican choice was vehemently antigun...........

What is your proof of that, a figment of your imagination fueled by pro-Brown forces on this board?

hasserl
10-11-2011, 5:40 PM
Okay, just some thoughts on Jerry Brown.

1. Signed Amicus in favor of 2A. Check.

2. Signed AB610 to standardize 12050 PC. Check.

3. Vetoed bill to register ammo. Check.

As others have already said, long gun registration doesn't go into effect until 2014, that gives our side time to get it ruled unconstitutional. AB144 made carrying an unloaded handgun illegal, an issue that stood in the way of a ruling in our favor in Peruta. Now they're going to have to come up with an alternative to that which, in their mind satisfies, the right to bear arms. So what could that possibly be ?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the bad side to this yet.

Brown's amicus brief was not pro-2A, we covered this prior to the election. You were mislead by people who wanted your vote.

SteveH
10-11-2011, 5:42 PM
What I expect is office holders to uphold the constitution. The minute they do not, by signing any antigun legislation, no matter how insignificant, they are PROVEN to be the enemy of liberty. Period.

hasserl
10-11-2011, 5:43 PM
Everyone keeps saying Chess, not Checkers. Have you ever sacrificed a pawn to divert the attention of your opponent, while you move your more important pieces for the win ?

These insignificant victories are like that.

That is crap, no one here was promoting the signing of these bills!!! You're just rationalizing now after the loss, like a Monday morning quarterback. Admit your defeat, you were swindled. You're never going to learn from your mistakes if you refuse to admit to them.

berg
10-11-2011, 5:45 PM
Black and white politics. They make a lot of sense to idiots and drunks.

That's signature material right there.

Stonewalker
10-11-2011, 5:46 PM
Think about this, what reason could Brown POSSIBLY have for saying retired LEOs can't keep their RAWs? I'm sure he lost political points in doing so. I'm sure retired LEO are one of the last categories of people that antis worry about having such guns. I'm sure he knows that his decision had ZERO impact on public safety.

Come guys, use your noggins.

SteveH
10-11-2011, 5:48 PM
If Long Gun Registration had been vetoed I'd be throwing drunken parties! To be dissapointed on only one bill... Not so bad for California.

Sure beats the year we got Microstamping and Lead Ammo in one... Thanks Republican Ahnold....

-Gene

You are not concerned about DROS fees being used to fund increased operation by Kami Harris' gun cops? I expect to see more border gun store and gun show stings. I expect to see more guys with family court orders getting their doors kicked in, arrested and their guns confiscated. I expect to see people who out of a poor understanding of our states overly complicated firearms laws getting arrested for prohibited person violations related to old plead bargains or hospitalizations.

Thats way worse than the UOC ban or rifle registration.

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 5:49 PM
I agree that, had the long gun registration been vetoed, that would be a good thing, but it wasn't, and in two years, if things don't change, it will be law. So what do you have up your sleeve that will make this effectively a moot point ? You know, like microstamping. Is passing long gun registration going to prove to be a lesson in futility for the legislators that voted for it ?

Long term, registration (of the sort we have here in California) will either be proved to be unconstitutional, or not. Short term, the long gun reg bill does create some interesting new arguments...

-Brandon

Bigtime1
10-11-2011, 5:50 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.

Sure, because he's so clear headed. He would never do something really stupid like give taxpayer dollars to illegal aliens...

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 5:53 PM
You are not concerned about DROS fees being used to fund increased operation by Kami Harris' gun cops? I expect to see more border gun store and gun show stings. I expect to see more guys with family court orders getting their doors kicked in, arrested and their guns confiscated. I expect to see people who out of a poor understanding of our states overly complicated firearms laws getting arrested for prohibited person violations related to old plead bargains or hospitalizations.

Thats way worse than the UOC ban or rifle registration.

There is currently ongoing litigation that should address the DROS fees issue. (If it doesn't, there are other litigation strategies available. NRA/CRPA attorneys took our investigation into the DROS system and went a different direction, but we hope that the case is successful so we can focus on issues like AWs, Bear, and waiting periods.)

Ultimately, those who are prohibited have a duty under the law to not possess firearms. It's difficult to be found reasonable if your primary argument against the increase in enforcement is that they will do more of what they are supposed to.

-Brandon

ivsamhell
10-11-2011, 5:54 PM
What is your proof of that, a figment of your imagination fueled by pro-Brown forces on this board?

Mostly just her statements, ebay being deathly allergic to anything firearm related under her supervision helped too.

MSO4MATT
10-11-2011, 5:59 PM
as will thinking this is a den vs rep issue.

simply being a republican does NOT make one a friend of the 2nd. thinking that it does has done more harm then good. Since 1983 there have been 4 govenors, 3 R, 1 D. Of those 3, 2 did as much damage to your RKBA as did the 1 democrat, Davis. So far, while not ideal by any means, Gov Brown hasn't done any significant damage and maybe even (intentional or not. open to debate I guess) done us some "favors". But regardless he hasn't done any significant damage to your RKBAs. So far a lot less than George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger did. and they were both Republican.

This isn't a party issue, it's a Civil Rights issue. please treat it as such and stop making it a party issue. personally I want to win. Don't you?

Everyone should take note of this statement. It is not a new concept. There are Tyrants and the People. People who think of and work towards more regulation are tyrants! Elite members of the political ruling class. Nothing is more despised than a free and "armed" serfdom by the elite. D vs. R issues are theater created to keep us distracted from the slow creep toward tyranny. Be more vigilant and vote freedom whenever you can for as long as you can.

Sleighter
10-11-2011, 6:00 PM
As someone who started out HIGHLY skeptical of Jerry Brown, let me just say this:

I'd much rather he vetoed the ammunition bill and signed off on banning UOC (which is all but meaningless for defensive purposes, anyway) than the other way around. Practicing UOC is nothing but a political statement; access and affordability of ammunition is an integral part of our favorite passtime and 2nd Amendment freedoms.

I don't know whether the UOC activity has harmed (via public opinion) or helped (via pending court cases about the right to "bear") us, but we need to keep our eyes on the prize: concealed, loaded carry.

^This. As much as I love political rhetoric, the truth is that I'm a pragmatist. All I care about is what I can and can't do at the end of the day, along with the ramifications of what I might be able to do in the future. So I'm all for keeping my eye on the prize, and to me, that isn't UOC.

mike51392
10-11-2011, 6:27 PM
Sure, because he's so clear headed. He would never do something really stupid like give taxpayer dollars to illegal aliens...


yeah no **** !

pieeater
10-11-2011, 6:33 PM
No problem. We'll just keep the electing the Boxers, Feinslimes, Bloombergs, Daleys, Vince Grays, Chuckie Schumers, and .... and .... and.. .. . Sure. Right.

They are all good people on our side!

chris
10-11-2011, 6:34 PM
yep he's no fool but he sure fooled gun owners on this board.

big red
10-11-2011, 6:42 PM
Why not go to the people to over turn these laws and impose second amendemnt freedoms in regards to ownership and carrying of firearms? Use sheriffs backing CCW's and go to gun manufactures for funding. Take the battle out of the halls of the capitol and put it on the streets with vote getters. Jerry Brown has always been anti-gun unless he needs votes and his record shows that. The capitol has always been anti-gun so why are gun activists going back to them time and time again expecting a different result. Isn't that the definition of insanity when you do the same thing time and time again while expecting different results? the politicians are not feeling threatened so they are not going to change anything.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 6:45 PM
Why not go to the people to over turn these laws and impose second amendemnt freedoms in regards to ownership and carrying of firearms? Use sheriffs backing CCW's and go to gun manufactures for funding. Take the battle out of the halls of the capitol and put it on the streets with vote getters. Jerry Brown has always been anti-gun unless he needs votes and his record shows that. The capitol has always been anti-gun so why are gun activists going back to them time and time again expecting a different result. Isn't that the definition of insanity when you do the same thing time and time again while expecting different results? the politicians are not feeling threatened so they are not going to change anything.

Because gun owners are the minority in this state and any measures we bring up will lose bad. The people of CA for, the most part, hate guns and gun owners.

Sunday
10-11-2011, 6:50 PM
Our gun rights will be legislated away a little bit by bit and we will not even care. We will be pissed but that is about it.

Stonewalker
10-11-2011, 7:10 PM
Our gun rights will be legislated away a little bit by bit and we will not even care. We will be pissed but that is about it.

I'm pretty sure this has already been said in this thread, but we won't be winning in the legislature for a long time. A decade at least. The PEOPLE of CA need to changed first in order to affect change at the Capital. As we win more people to the idea of owning guns, our legislature will change but there will be a lag. This is going to be substantially easier after Heller and McDonald. In the meantime, we can only have "less bad" legislatures and we all need to be taking antis shooting.

markm
10-11-2011, 7:17 PM
I can't believe the rationalization that I am reading here. I am even reading it from the leaders of this organization.

Please don't sugar-coat the fact that an enumerated right has been curtailed. Jerry may be playing chess, but it is not for our benefit. He is building his base, again.

The democrat voters on this website are to blame for the loss of more civil rights. We lost civil rights! Jerry Brown is not your friend. He will not take care of you, even if you vote for him again.

Yeah, there are Benedict Arnold republicans (we have two parties in America: the corrupt party and the stupid party; I belong to the stupid party). 99% of dems will vote to curtail 2A everytime. The vast majority of republicans will vote to enhance 2A. Look at all of the republican controlled states and their gun rights. AZ, WY, and WI are some of the most recent examples. Republican controlled states have some of the best economies and lowest unemployment rates. They have excellent roads--I know this personally.

California republicans, as a whole, did not vote for any of these bills.

Democrats are Kalifornia's problem. People who vote democrat are also the problem. Liberalism is all about controlling the people.

Rationalization combined with projection is a mental disorder.

As Brandon Combs has written before, I am a quitter. I am a quitter because I will retire to a free state as a refugee of commiefornia. I love the geography of this state; the totalitarian government sucks.

markm

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 7:18 PM
You are not concerned about DROS fees being used to fund increased operation by Kami Harris' gun cops? I expect to see more border gun store and gun show stings. I expect to see more guys with family court orders getting their doors kicked in, arrested and their guns confiscated. I expect to see people who out of a poor understanding of our states overly complicated firearms laws getting arrested for prohibited person violations related to old plead bargains or hospitalizations.

Thats way worse than the UOC ban or rifle registration.

I don't car that CA took ill gotten gains from one pocket to another. The fee level is unconstitutional. Do you really think the cash was there and they weren't just trying to duck the audit?

-Gene

Kid Stanislaus
10-11-2011, 7:29 PM
[QUOTE=rogervzv;7304397]Wrong. Brown is 100% against gun rights. Those of you who think that the ban on unloaded open carry will lead to a "shall issue" regime in California for carry permits are simply wrong too. All of Brown's actions evidence a deep hostility to gun rights in common with all Democrats. And these people can pass 20 anti-gun laws for every one that we get overturned or weakened in the courts, which is exactly what is happening.[QUOTE]

Your tin foil hat is fitted WAY too tight. :rolleyes:

Kid Stanislaus
10-11-2011, 7:30 PM
But don't you know? The world is divided into two, distinct, simple camps: the libs and the pro-2As.
And obviously, Brown must be a lib, therefore anti-2A.
Black and white politics. They make a lot of sense to idiots and drunks.


^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

rt66paul
10-11-2011, 7:35 PM
This is really simple to answer, basically if a retired PO is retired, he is no longer a PO. Thus the weapon he bought specifically for duty should not be retained. He is now just like every other citizen who must abide by the laws set forth in the state.

It takes away the "special class".

Really guys, do you even know why they call him "moonbeam"? Its not because he was "out there either" He has a ton of insight to things. Thats why he got the name "moonbeam"

Think about this, what reason could Brown POSSIBLY have for saying retired LEOs can't keep their RAWs? I'm sure he lost political points in doing so. I'm sure retired LEO are one of the last categories of people that antis worry about having such guns. I'm sure he knows that his decision had ZERO impact on public safety.

Come guys, use your noggins.


Do NOT underestimate JB. He is the smartest politician since Thomas Jefferson. I do not agree with these last moves, but I am sure that he has a plan. It may not be one we agree with, but there is one.

His stopping retired LEOs from having trump rights over regular citizens(these are NOT reserve officers, they are done with serving) These guys(and gals) are nothing special and are no different from any Californian who is a legal resident and is not a felon.

The idea that anyone is above others because of a previous career is not right. This makes it one step closer to CCW. This means that they will need to ask for one and if they are granted one, there is NO reason that anyone else should not. Now, I realize that many LEOs may not agree with this, but The rest of us should be able to have any firearm that they can possess. If there have to be firearms that citizens can not own, then only the SWAT should be able to use and train with them, and they are to be kept in the SWAT armory, not by the LEO.

This is good for any Californian that owns firearms, and those that don't also.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 7:58 PM
When California gets "Shall Issue", I'll throw a barbecue for all of the naysayers.

This is what will be on the menu.

http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2006/08/eating_crow.jpg

epilepticninja
10-11-2011, 8:29 PM
Keep voting Democrat and you will destroy what little gun rights we have left in California.

Not to point out the obvious, but didn't Arnold sign AB962? I don't think the Demo's are the only political party taking a dump on our rights here in the PRK.

kblack583
10-11-2011, 9:18 PM
Not to point out the obvious, but didn't Arnold sign AB962? I don't think the Demo's are the only political party taking a dump on our rights here in the PRK.

Really? Keep pointing to a an out of the norm traitor like Arnold to somehow justify a democratic vote. Let me know how that works out down the road.

Want to be honest about it? Then put it in the text of supreme court appointments and make the same argument.

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 9:45 PM
Want to be honest about it? Then put it in the text of supreme court appointments and make the same argument.

Don't confuse federal politics with state politics. Outside of California the Republicans are only slightly more capable than the inept Democrats. But it continues to be a race for the bottom.

-Gene

Don29palms
10-11-2011, 10:09 PM
Any gun control laws are unconstitutional to begin with. They are all infringements. Thank you liberals for creating the United Socialist State of Kalifornia Where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean nothing anymore.

taperxz
10-11-2011, 10:12 PM
Any gun control laws are unconstitutional to begin with. They are all infringements. Thank you liberals for creating the United Socialist State of Kalifornia Where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean nothing anymore.

Actually most of the gun laws we have in place were either introduced or signed off by a republican.

Sgt Raven
10-11-2011, 10:18 PM
I'm a Firefighter/EMT in an Oil Refinery, these little flames are nothing compared to what I'm used to.

Is your nickname here from Purple K Powder? If so then :facepalm: :D

Zebra
10-11-2011, 10:24 PM
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>

CAL-ERT 10/10/11 --- 00:01 A.M.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LEGISLATIVE ALERT

This information is accurate at the time this CAL-ERT was written and originally distributed. The NRA Members' Councils of California will keep you informed as the legislative, regulatory, and/or litigation situation changes in California.

GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS NRA/CRPA SPONSORED CCW REFORM LEGISLATION!

When Senate Bill 610 goes into effect, the first of next year, it will bring the long-awaited statewide consistency in the manner of how CCW permits are processed by all issuing agencies. SB610 will require agencies to determine if an applicant has initial "Good Cause" to be issued a permit BEFORE the applicant is required to fulfill the requirements in training, classes, background checks and pay the sometimes extensive fees required to obtain a permit. SB610 will also specify that issuing agencies CANNOT require CCW applicants to obtain "Liability Insurance" as a condition for being issued a CCW permit.

In California's current political climate, reforms such as SB610 require a tremendous amount of effort and coordination by all of those involved. The NRA and CRPA have shown to be quite effective in their efforts to pass this legislation that both organizations sponsored. Their work to protect the Second Amendment freedoms of their members is a perfect example of how we all can be successful if we remain vigilant.

When the Governor signed Senate Bill 610, he presented NRA's lobbyist with a copy of the signed bill. Clearly, Governor Brown appreciates NRA-ILA California State Liaison Ed Worley.

http://www.calnra.com/calerts/SB610.jpg
Y'all saw this, right?

F.

IrishPirate
10-11-2011, 10:26 PM
Actually most of the gun laws we have in place were either introduced or signed off by a republican.

:eek: what are you doing spreading truth!!! :eek:

yes, it's a sad truth that there seems to be a cyclical nature to who does and doesn't support gun control when it comes to politics. In 20-30 years we might be cursing conservative republicans for their anti-gun rhetoric and all claiming to be liberal democrats that cling to our guns and freedom!

Sgt Raven
10-11-2011, 10:39 PM
What is your proof of that, a figment of your imagination fueled by pro-Brown forces on this board?

Meg Whitman [/URL] A native of Long Island, New York, she is a graduate of Princeton University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman#cite_note-HPnamesWhitman-2) and Harvard Business School[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_School"].

eMeg is a New Yorker with the anti gun attitude of those from that area, plus what she did at E-Bay. What's YOUR proof she's not?

Purple K
10-11-2011, 10:46 PM
Is your nickname here from Purple K Powder? If so then :facepalm: :D

But, of course. :D

vonderplatz
10-11-2011, 10:47 PM
Wow...just, wow. You guys sure do see what you want to see. While Brown could certainly be worse, he is no friend to gun rights. He just passed legislation that we have been fighting tooth and nail in this state for as long as I have been into guns (registration of long guns) and you sing his praises.

^^^This!

jamesob
10-11-2011, 10:54 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.

Your right he is no fool, he didn't sign the ammo bill because it was already ruled in our favor. All the others haven't been challenged yet in court that's why he signed them. If you think he signed any bill to help our cause in any way, I think I know where the fool is.

mlevans66
10-11-2011, 11:03 PM
I got a feeling thing are going to change with the new guns laws. Lawyers are shady by nature and find silver lining is clouds all the time. I can see a whole slew of lawsuits coming that might end up at the supreme court. Kali could be the breaking point for a lot of other states gunlaws being changed in the future. Might even lead to national carry CCW or otherwise. Hey I can dream right?

Josh3239
10-11-2011, 11:11 PM
Only in California, the land of fruits and nuts, would a "pro gun" crowd defend Jerry Brown signing anti-gun bills.

Beyond
10-11-2011, 11:23 PM
Because gun owners are the minority in this state and any measures we bring up will lose bad. The people of CA for, the most part, hate guns and gun owners.

I think there just isn't enough education on the topic matter. If there was a shooting 101 as a gym class I'm sure we wouldn't have these problems. :)

Jared1981
10-11-2011, 11:28 PM
Okay, just some thoughts on Jerry Brown.

1. Signed Amicus in favor of 2A. Check.

2. Signed AB610 to standardize 12050 PC. Check.

3. Vetoed bill to register ammo. Check.

As others have already said, long gun registration doesn't go into effect until 2014, that gives our side time to get it ruled unconstitutional. AB144 made carrying an unloaded handgun illegal, an issue that stood in the way of a ruling in our favor in Peruta. Now they're going to have to come up with an alternative to that which, in their mind satisfies, the right to bear arms. So what could that possibly be ?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the bad side to this yet.

This is a myth. If UOC was banned when Peruta was argued, the court would have just stated that Heller does not apply outside the home.

This notion that UOC prevented a good court ruling on carry is actually more crazy than the rationalization that Brown is pro-RKBA. He didn't do anyone in CA any favors on 2A issues. Long gun registration is a very bad sign of things to come in CA.

You do realize that not even New York or New Jersey has the votes to pass long gun registration (New Jersey doesn't register handguns either).

Future court rulings may help in CA in the long run; however, California will be what Alabama was to the civil rights act.

elSquid
10-11-2011, 11:29 PM
Brown's amicus brief was not pro-2A, we covered this prior to the election. You were mislead by people who wanted your vote.

If Brown was anti-2nd...

a) he would have submitted an "anti" brief in Heller. CA was notably absent from the usual list of anti gun states.

Brief for New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico in Support of Petitioner (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_PetitionerAmCu6USStates.pdf)

b) he would have submitted an anti-brief in McDonald. He didn't. We got a pro-2nd instead.

For those that say that the content matters: why would he defend the registry but mention Pena, and ask for guidance? Pena shows that the registry is quite visibly flawed...

But content really didn't matter. The core question was: does Heller apply to the states? The CA AG said it did. He could have wrote: "here in CA we have great gun laws, we allow people to own guns, the 2nd shouldn't apply to the states." But he didn't.

You really can't over emphasize the importance of those two cases: they give us the lever to actually challenge bad gun laws. If we lost Heller or McDonald, we'd be in a very, very bad spot.

-- Michael

30rdMag
10-11-2011, 11:33 PM
I think if the Gov, signed some stuff knowing that it was going to be tossed out in court. He is winning. He looks good to the Anti guns crowd. And in the end gave us the power to remove even more in the future.

So while it might take a bit, and seem like a set back. I think he did us a favor while still looking good to the Anti crowd. He can't be blamed if the courts strike it down. And it opens new doors for us. He's opening doors for us while looking good for others and letting the court system be the bad guy.

GWbiker
10-11-2011, 11:35 PM
Actually most of the gun laws we have in place were either introduced or signed off by a republican.

Yes, and it's been that way since 1923. Haven't you people had enough racially motivated gun control??

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 11:43 PM
This is a myth. If UOC was banned when Peruta was argued, the court would have just stated that Heller does not apply outside the home.

You are only partially correct. The law of the case is now that UOC is an acceptable alternate. Oops.

-Gene

dantodd
10-11-2011, 11:57 PM
This is a myth. If UOC was banned when Peruta was argued, the court would have just stated that Heller does not apply outside the home.

This notion that UOC prevented a good court ruling on carry is actually more crazy than the rationalization that Brown is pro-RKBA. He didn't do anyone in CA any favors on 2A issues. Long gun registration is a very bad sign of things to come in CA.

First of all, you may well be right, if UOC were outlawed 2 years ago Peruta and Richards may have relied on some other issue, but the judges in those cases chose to hang their hats on UOC and accepted that 2A extends beyond the home. The CA legislature and Gov. just removed their hat rack.

Second, Long Gun Registration is not even the second worst bill that JB signed. You need to seriously re-evaluate your perspective on strategic issues. It's easy to get caught up in the minutiae of laws you "don't like" and miss the laws that might actually cause us harm and difficulty down the road.

ErikTheRed
10-12-2011, 12:57 AM
I posted the following comments in a thread a couple of nights ago, but that thread was closed. After reading this thread thus far, I think my comments are an even better fit here-- so heres a copy-n'-paste repost in the interest and importance of my extremely valuable evening spare time......

I don't hate to tell you "I told you so". I didn't buy a single word of any of that "Brown is our friend on 2A issues" garbage that was being spewed by so many on this website. As CalBear pointed out, even Brown's amicus brief clearly defined his position on California's draconian anti-gun lawmaking and he was quite direct in explaining his opinion on our "common sense gun laws leading the Nation". How in the world could anyone read that and possibly believe he's our buddy? He is no more our buddy than any other left-wing anti-Constitution progressive liberal democrat fool, and his support of these bills now PROVES IT beyond any further speculation or hope. His veto of AB 427 included a clear message, one that I think it irresponsible to try and defend as a positive message--- he obviously stated the reason for the veto was only because the current bill it amends is in litigation. He goes on to include a direct hint that we ("we" meaning "us gun-grabbing democrats") need to patiently wait for the results of that litigation before attacking from this angle, but not to worry, we'll have 'dry powder' when the time comes. Any attempt to decipher his message as anything contrary to that is simply wishful, but not intelligent, thinking. Jerry Brown is an anti-gun zealot, no different in frame of mind than the anti-gun zealots who wrote and supported those bills. Any one of us could have (and SHOULD have) seen this coming a long way off, and I'm dissappointed that so many here tried to defend Brown as friendly to our 2nd Amendment rights. He is not, and I hope these decisions lay to rest any further irresponsible justifications for his actions.

Now, all that said, I also understand that our other "choice" in the last election wouldn't have been any better based on what we know of her past statements, but I can't see how she would have been any worse except that she may have signed AB 427 without at least the political smarts to wait for the right time to strike. Brown knew to wait, but that doesn't change the intent, and the intent is to further restrict the Constitutional rights of Californians based on a left-wing anti-gun philosophy where both Brown and Whitman have firmly established their camp. I did the only thing a smart, freedom-loving Californian could have done in the last election and voted for neither one of them, and I made it perfectly clear at the time that it was the ONLY choice. I tried to encourage others to follow suit, but too many of us were too busy gulping down the rancid spoon-fed soup to actually stop and look at the ingredients first.

Lastly, lets not get caught up in the ensuing deluge of inspiration, where Brown's decisions may lead to golden opportunites democrats be damned. Some of his decisions may have opened Pandora's proverbial box, but that DOES NOT excuse Brown for his opinions or decisions. A simple veto would have been a heck of a lot easier, faster, and a lot less expensive than trying to finagle our way out from underneath the mountain of anti-gun crap being constantly poured on our heads by these tyrants, and if he were our friend, he certainly wouldn't have intentionally dumped more crap for us to try and worm out from underneath of. Dumping crap and trying to wear us out is their strategy. Even a tyrant inadvertently leaves open a door from time to time, a door than can be exploited, but that doesn't justify the tyrant slamming shut other doors in an concerted effort to keep us out. Because a cloud may have a silver lining doesn't mean the cloud isn't a cloud. Brown is a progressive anti-gun liberal scumbag and will do us no favors..... and I told you so.

ErikTheRed
10-12-2011, 1:25 AM
Affirming that my above comments are absolutely factually true, direct, and undebatable (although certainly some will try, to thier ultimate failure), its extremely necessary to stress that even though Brown is an anti-gun rat who shares a philosophy with the Brady Bunch, he did indeed leave open a door or two. That those doors can and likely will be exploited by some very talented people who desparately need our full, undivided support is equally true, and I do not intend to let the rats run off with our cheese. Ironically, Brown, as dumb as he is progressively liberal, may have set his own trap. (To those who believe he did this with some hidden coded secret-squirrel pro-2A agenda: you are dilusional. Please see an herbologist or an accupuncturist immediately, you are in desparate need of alternative therapy.) Brown is not a chess player. Some who frequent this website, however, are, and although we may not always see things on the same level, these guys are the only calvary we have left. Ride with them, support them, donate to the cause, and lets trap the rats. Easy? No. Doable? I believe so. But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should one rat dropping's worth of credit go to Jerry Moonbeam Brown, for he (and other like-minded anti-gun progressive tyrants) are the reason we are forced to continue to negotiate this seemingly never-ending maze of unconstitutional confusion.

ccmc
10-12-2011, 6:20 AM
I can't believe the rationalization that I am reading here. I am even reading it from the leaders of this organization.

Please don't sugar-coat the fact that an enumerated right has been curtailed. Jerry may be playing chess, but it is not for our benefit. He is building his base, again.

The democrat voters on this website are to blame for the loss of more civil rights. We lost civil rights! Jerry Brown is not your friend. He will not take care of you, even if you vote for him again.

Yeah, there are Benedict Arnold republicans (we have two parties in America: the corrupt party and the stupid party; I belong to the stupid party). 99% of dems will vote to curtail 2A everytime. The vast majority of republicans will vote to enhance 2A. Look at all of the republican controlled states and their gun rights. AZ, WY, and WI are some of the most recent examples. Republican controlled states have some of the best economies and lowest unemployment rates. They have excellent roads--I know this personally.

California republicans, as a whole, did not vote for any of these bills.

Democrats are Kalifornia's problem. People who vote democrat are also the problem.

When it comes to RKBA you're pretty much right. Anecdotally there are democrats who support RKBA. but the plural of anecdote is not data, and the data show the vast majority of politicians who are more favorably inclined toward RKBA are republicans. It's not even close. Look at the votes in 2009 in the Senate on the Thune Amendment or the sponsorship or HR 822 now. It's no different in California where the legislature has been controlled by democrats for at least the last 40 years IIRC. So yeah, on RKBA the data is pretty black and white.

Bhobbs
10-12-2011, 6:38 AM
You are only partially correct. The law of the case is now that UOC is an acceptable alternate. Oops.

-Gene

What's to keep them from saying that LUCC is an acceptable alternative or something else?

kblack583
10-12-2011, 6:47 AM
Don't confuse federal politics with state politics. Outside of California the Republicans are only slightly more capable than the inept Democrats. But it continues to be a race for the bottom.

-Gene

For this argument there isn't a real distinction. Its about trying justify a demo vote which in turn is a vote against our 2A rights. Ineptness of the parties aside, the majority of republicans back our 2A rights and the majority of the Dems don't. Whether state or fed, the same holds true. Voting for our foes and justifying it by pointing at the fringe elements of our friends is sketchy at best and only helps solidify the base of our enemys.

Jared1981
10-12-2011, 7:33 AM
You are only partially correct. The law of the case is now that UOC is an acceptable alternate. Oops.

-Gene

Gene,

What I meant was that they would have ruled against carrying anyway. There is no evidence to support anything to the contrary. They simply would have taken the approach that has been taken in MD, MA, and NY, which is that Heller does not apply outside the home.


UOC practices would have stopped at a higher court. UOC did not involve a fully functional firearm as Heller stated, and e checks are a gross violation of the 4th amendment.

The Shadow
10-12-2011, 7:36 AM
You do realize that not even New York or New Jersey has the votes to pass long gun registration (New Jersey doesn't register handguns either).

You don't want to go there. I spent time in New York, so I'm well acquainted with New York's gun laws.

The fact of the matter is, yes you can buy a long gun without registration, and when I was there, it was cash and carry. However, I also remember not being able to even touch a handgun unless you had a license to keep, or a license to carry. The license to keep only allowed you to possess a handgun in your home, it didn't allow you to take it to the range. The license to carry was tougher to get. I got neither while I was there and used the indoor range on the Depot to shoot the handgun I unknowingly carried illegally into New York.

I have no clue how bad New York gun laws have become, nor am I inclined to find out. As I understand it, New Jersey gun laws are worse and actually require permission from the local police department before the state will give you a permission slip. To date, that's not the case in California.

The Shadow
10-12-2011, 7:45 AM
What's to keep them from saying that LUCC is an acceptable alternative or something else?

Well if the "Heller 5" stay consistent, they will say a locked pistol on your person is not acceptable for self defense, just as they said that a gun with a trigger lock on it in your home is not acceptable self defense.

Bhobbs
10-12-2011, 7:56 AM
Well if the "Heller 5" stay consistent, they will say a locked pistol on your person is not acceptable for self defense, just as they said that a gun with a trigger lock on it in your home is not acceptable self defense.

We are not talking about the "Heller 5". We are talking about California courts that said UOC was a legitimate replacement for an LTC. Now that UOC is illegal I predict they will say LUCC or something else is a legitimate means of carry instead of ruling in our favor.

markm
10-12-2011, 8:01 AM
We are not talking about the "Heller 5". We are talking about California courts that said UOC was a legitimate replacement for an LTC. Now that UOC is illegal I predict they will say LUCC is a legitimate means of carry instead of ruling in our favor.

Hey Bhobbs,

+1

And, the courts will not create case law that defines LUCC as legal anytime, anywhere (except in sterile areas of gubmint buildings or schools).

So, we will be "allowed to" LUCC to a range or National Forest as a constitutional right, and that is all.

To all Brown supporters:
You are rationalizing and projecting.

markm

taperxz
10-12-2011, 8:04 AM
What's to keep them from saying that LUCC is an acceptable alternative or something else?


A locked weapon is not a functional firearm. A locked firearm, is firearm that is not being carried.

Imagine if a city said you had to keep a handgun in your safe at home unless in an emergency.

markm
10-12-2011, 8:07 AM
For this argument there isn't a real distinction. Its about trying justify a demo vote which in turn is a vote against our 2A rights. Ineptness of the parties aside, the majority of republicans back our 2A rights and the majority of the Dems don't. Whether state or fed, the same holds true. Voting for our foes and justifying it by pointing at the fringe elements of our friends is sketchy at best and only helps solidify the base of our enemys.

Hey kblack,

+1

Dems usually pass these bill with just-enough votes. Dems who are up for re-election in a conservative district are allowed to vote against these anti 2A bills so they can campaign on being pro-2A, or pro-farmer, or pro-business. Had the dem leadership needed their votes for passage, the pro-2A dem would have fallen-in lock-step with leadership and voted anti 2A.

markm

taperxz
10-12-2011, 8:15 AM
Hey kblack,

+1

Dems usually pass these bill with just-enough votes. Dems who are up for re-election in a conservative district are allowed to vote against these anti 2A bills so they can campaign on being pro-2A, or pro-farmer, or pro-business. Had the dem leadership needed their votes for passage, the pro-2A dem would have fallen-in lock-step with leadership and voted anti 2A.

markm

Wow the reverse of the JB pro gun conspiracy theory

Trailboss60
10-12-2011, 8:16 AM
Jerry brown is no friend of the 2A, no need to sugar coat the truth.


+1


When you learn to acceptable levels of rat turds in your food, it goes down quite nicely.

markm
10-12-2011, 8:19 AM
When it comes to RKBA you're pretty much right. Anecdotally there are democrats who support RKBA. but the plural of anecdote is not data, and the data show the vast majority of politicians who are more favorably inclined toward RKBA are republicans. It's not even close. Look at the votes in 2009 in the Senate on the Thune Amendment or the sponsorship or HR 822 now. It's no different in California where the legislature has been controlled by democrats for at least the last 40 years IIRC. So yeah, on RKBA the data is pretty black and white.

Hey ccmc,

We definately concur.

To a rational person, your opinion is without doubt.

I don't vote for Dems because I care about 2A and private property rights. As I have said before, there are Benedict Arnold republicans. The odds are that most of the time, republicans will do the right thing. Republicans will do the right thing 60/40 while democrats will do the right thing 5/95.

A 5% positive voting record aint good enough.

The contrast is not arguable, except to a rationalizer.

markm

taperxz
10-12-2011, 8:23 AM
As a stout independent, could someone tell me what republicans helped the 2A here in CA in let's say the last 40 years? Names and accomplishments please.

markm
10-12-2011, 8:28 AM
Wow the reverse of the JB pro gun conspiracy theory

Hey taperxz,

No this is not conspiracy. Politics is war conducted by other means.

Democrats are masters of the game.

The tactic that I wrote about is common knowledge. We are witnessing the U.S. Senate use this tactic right now on Obama's jobs bill. Tester, Webb, and Manchon are facing tough re-election bids. They are talking against Obama policy. They are trying to save their jobs, even though they will vote for socialist policy if their votes are needed to pass legislation.

Do you belong to a union?

markm

resident-shooter
10-12-2011, 8:37 AM
Um he sure is not a die hard right wing pro gun LaPierre, but by cali standards we can hardly complain. Think back to arnie.... This guy is at least half "reasonable" when it comes to gun laws. Also who cares about UOC anyways? If the only reason to have it is to have some moarans post stupid videos all over the web showing themselves irritating/trolling crowds and police with guns just to get the kicks out of it as well as abuse this freedom, then I utterly fail to see the point of fighting for it. CCW is what we should look forward to.

Trailboss60
10-12-2011, 8:38 AM
As a stout independent, could someone tell me what republicans helped the 2A here in CA in let's say the last 40 years? Names and accomplishments please.


Q: On gun control issues, would you support more or less restrictions?

McCLINTOCK: Less restrictions. I believe that people have a fundamental natural right to defend themselves against violent predators, the right is enshrined in the second amendment to the US constitution.
Source: Recall debate in Walnut Creek Sep 3, 2003

Since the Democrats pretty much control the legislature and what bills ever see the light of day, you have what you have in Ca....having said that, the California Republican party does have it's share of country club Republicans of the Schwarzenegger mold, but the Democrat party truly deserves to have the title of gun grabber hung around their necks, they worked hard for that title.

The Shadow
10-12-2011, 8:39 AM
We are not talking about the "Heller 5". We are talking about California courts that said UOC was a legitimate replacement for an LTC. Now that UOC is illegal I predict they will say LUCC or something else is a legitimate means of carry instead of ruling in our favor.

No, I believe it was a federal court judge that said UOC was a legitimate replacement for LTC.

markm
10-12-2011, 8:41 AM
As a stout independent, could someone tell me what republicans helped the 2A here in CA in let's say the last 40 years? Names and accomplishments please.

Hey taperxz,

In order for your agenda to become law, you must have a majority in the legislature and a willing governor. Socialists have controlled this state for forty years.

Governors Duekmejian, Wilson, and ScwhartzenKennedy did not have the legistlature. Arnold had a neo-Marxist legislature. Arnold was the definition of a Benedict Arnold Republican. Governors are not kings.

Are you an independent because you don't have an ideology or core beliefs? My ideology is creator granted and constitutionally garaunteed rights first, socialism last. I am more libertarian than republican; however, libertarians can't win because they hold some crackpot beliefs (that last 10% of their beliefs ruin them).

Independents flap around like a flag. They usually vote for the candidate who makes them feel good. Not me.

markm

markm
10-12-2011, 8:45 AM
No, I believe it was a federal court judge that said UOC was a legitimate replacement for LTC.

No, I believe it was two federal judges that opined that.

Bhobbs has it right. Those same two judges would probably rule, in light of AB 144, that there is some other reason to rule for the plaintiffs. Like LUCC, or 2A is home only.

markm

The Shadow
10-12-2011, 8:45 AM
Hey taperxz,

In order for your agenda to become law, you must have a majority in the legislature and a willing governor. Socialists have controlled this state for forty years.

Governors Duekmejian, Wilson, and ScwhartzenKennedy did not have the legistlature. Arnold had a neo-Marxist legislature. Arnold was the definition of a Benedict Arnold Republican. Governors are not kings.

Are you an independent because you don't have an ideology or core beliefs? My ideology is creator granted and constitutionally garaunteed rights first, socialism last. I am more libertarian than republican; however, libertarians can't win because they hold some crackpot beliefs (that last 10% of their beliefs ruin them).

Independents flap around like a flag. They usually vote for the candidate who makes them feel good. Not me.

markm

Duekmegian and Wilson weren't exactly pro-gun. Remember Deukmejian signed the Roberti Roos bill. Pete Wilson did veto bills that would have enhanced Roberti Roos, beyond that I don't recall him signing any other pro-gun bills.

taperxz
10-12-2011, 8:49 AM
Duke SIGNED roberti roos, He didn't veto it. Ronald Reagan signed the Brady Bill,

Independent means I don't drink anyone's kool aid. I fend for myself and trust no one.
Right is right and wrong is wrong! I don't need a political group to TELL me what's right or wrong!

OleCuss
10-12-2011, 8:50 AM
As a stout independent, could someone tell me what republicans helped the 2A here in CA in let's say the last 40 years? Names and accomplishments please.

I can't think of any. Maybe some state legislators did some things behind the scenes so that we never did see some of the bad legislation we'd have otherwise seen?

But the flip side is that there have been very few Republicans in a powerful position in the state in the last few decades. The ones who did achieve some power weren't worth all that much. . .

Personally, I'll take my RKBA friends where I can find them in whatever party.

I'd even entertain the idea that if we want to achieve our political goals that the way to do it is to join the Democrat party en masse and then be activists within that party for our civil rights.

taperxz
10-12-2011, 8:51 AM
No, I believe it was two federal judges that opined that.

Bhobbs has it right. Those same two judges would probably rule, in light of AB 144, that there is some other reason to rule for the plaintiffs. Like LUCC, or 2A is home only.

markm

It's clear you lack in knowledge in regards to case law that is already in the books.

markm
10-12-2011, 8:57 AM
It's clear you lack in knowledge in regards to case law that is already in the books.

Hey Taperxz,

No, I think I have it correct. A judge in San Diego ruled against Peruta and a judge in Yolo ruled against Richards. There are other triers-of-fact from across the nation who have ruled that RKBA is home only.

I hope I have the names correct.

Bhobbs and I are speculating regarding LUCC. Speculation does not require case law citations.

markm

taperxz
10-12-2011, 9:03 AM
Hey Taperxz,

No, I think I have it correct. A judge in San Diego ruled against Peruta and a judge in Yolo ruled against Richards. There are other triers-of-fact from across the nation who have ruled that RKBA is home only.

I hope I have the names correct.

Bhobbs and I are speculating regarding LUCC. Speculation does not require case law citations.

markm

Thank you again for making my point!

Peruta was denied on the sole basis that he had the ability to UOC, Since the court ruled that, you can not now turn around and say "in the home only"

Heller made it clear that a locked firearm is not a functional firearm for self defense.

NOW your were saying?

warkaj
10-12-2011, 9:09 AM
Screw em, get your CC permit from Arizona and file for one in CA... use your existing CC permit as ground for issuance here.... then carry away.

Personally, I know many people who carry all the time and you'd never know they had no permit.. but they do carry a copy of the Constitution in their pocket. See the thing is they don't cause a scene, they don't give cops hell, they don't go to San Diego and protest by city hall... they go to work, they come home, they play with their kids but all the while they're carrying a loaded 9mm compact under their shirt and tie. They've been doing it for almost a decade and still to this day they do it... Jeff and Eddie... you guys are CRAZY! but I know if some ***** tries to rob them they're going to blow a hole in the bastard and live rather than be a victim.
All gun laws are unconstitutional at their core... the 2nd amendment prohibits states from making any law that infringes on your right to keep and bear arms, period. END OF DISCUSSION.

taperxz
10-12-2011, 9:14 AM
Screw em, get your CC permit from Arizona and file for one in CA... use your existing CC permit as ground for issuance here.... then carry away.

Personally, I know many people who carry all the time and you'd never know they had no permit.. but they do carry a copy of the Constitution in their pocket. See the thing is they don't cause a scene, they don't give cops hell, they don't go to San Diego and protest by city hall... they go to work, they come home, they play with their kids but all the while they're carrying a loaded 9mm compact under their shirt and tie. They've been doing it for almost a decade and still to this day they do it... Jeff and Eddie... you guys are CRAZY! but I know if some ***** tries to rob them they're going to blow a hole in the bastard and live rather than be a victim.
All gun laws are unconstitutional at their core... the 2nd amendment prohibits states from making any law that infringes on your right to keep and bear arms, period. END OF DISCUSSION.

Wow, thanks, for the record can you show me where it says this? I would like to read that.

Jared1981
10-12-2011, 9:19 AM
You don't want to go there. I spent time in New York, so I'm well acquainted with New York's gun laws.



You are not the only one who has been east of the Sierra Nevada's. Being from New England and spending 4 years in the NJ/ New York City area, I am very familiar of their gun laws and the political climate.

As bad as the climate is in those areas, they can't even pass a .50 cal ban or a long gun registration requirement. That was the point and it's not up for debate because there is no section in either state code that requires the registration of long guns (or handguns in the case of New Jersey).

You can privately purchase rifles in New York and for New Jersey, you can move into the state without registering or paying $19 for any firearm that you can legally own.

California joins only one other state (and almost all the territories) in long gun registration.

The main point is that in California private sales are banned so ALL long arm transfers from 2014 on will be registered... and it will only be a matter of time before the "voluntary" long gun registration form will be required for "imports".

Look at the past political trends. Hawaii passed long gun registration for all transfers and purchases from 1994 on. That was the same year the mayor of Honolulu seriously tried to ban handguns.... and he had A LOT of traction in the state legislature.

California is simply passing bills that NO OTHER STATE could pass since the 1990's.

This will make things very difficult because at this point, the only way to slow down the trend (forget about reversing for the next decade) is to hopefully have SCOTUS rule in a positive manner on as many RKBA issues that they can and then have the 9th circuit issue injunctions, because california is still trying to register ammo and since they have long gun registration half way completed, they will have more time to focus on other draconian measures that seem to pass with ease in California when they can't even pass anymore in states like Hawaii or New Jersey.

The Shadow
10-12-2011, 9:28 AM
You are not the only one who has been east of the Sierra Nevada's. Being from New England and spending 4 years in the NJ/ New York City area, I am very familiar of their gun laws and the political climate.

As bad as the climate is in those areas, they can't even pass a .50 cal ban or a long gun registration requirement. That was the point and it's not up for debate because there is no section in either state code that requires the registration of long guns (or handguns in the case of New Jersey).

You can privately purchase rifles in New York and for New Jersey, you can move into the state without registering or paying $19 for any firearm that you can legally own.

California joins only one other state (and almost all the territories) in long gun registration.

The main point is that in California private sales are banned so ALL long arm transfers from 2014 on will be registered... and it will only be a matter of time before the "voluntary" long gun registration form will be required for "imports".

Look at the past political trends. Hawaii passed long gun registration for all transfers and purchases from 1994 on. That was the same year the mayor of Honolulu seriously tried to ban handguns.... and he had A LOT of traction in the state legislature.

California is simply passing bills that NO OTHER STATE could pass since the 1990's.

This will make things very difficult because at this point, the only way to slow down the trend (forget about reversing for the next decade) is to hopefully have SCOTUS rule in a positive manner on as many RKBA issues that they can and then have the 9th circuit issue injunctions, because california is still trying to register ammo and since they have long gun registration half way completed, they will have more time to focus on other draconian measures that seem to pass with ease in California when they can't even pass anymore in states like Hawaii or New Jersey.

Well that's all fine and dandy, but I think I'll continue to listen to those who are really in the know on these issues, and not listen to those, present company included, that only think they know what's up.

:rockon:

markm
10-12-2011, 9:44 AM
Thank you again for making my point!

Peruta was denied on the sole basis that he had the ability to UOC, Since the court ruled that, you can not now turn around and say "in the home only"

Heller made it clear that a locked firearm is not a functional firearm for self defense.

NOW your were saying?

Hey taperxz,

You are using a standard union technique. Change the subject.

Eastern courts have ruled that 2A is "in home only." Not me.

Heller had passing references to 2A outside the home. You are rationalizing on so many points.

Are you sure that SCOTUS won't adopt "rational basis" for outside-the-home RKBA? Kennedy is the wildcard. He will probably side with the anti-2A-four on the court on the outside-the-home issue.

You act as though "strict scrutiny" is case law for America on 2A issues--it is not.

You do not understand politics. That is why you vote democrat.

markm

markm
10-12-2011, 9:49 AM
I can't think of any. Maybe some state legislators did some things behind the scenes so that we never did see some of the bad legislation we'd have otherwise seen?

But the flip side is that there have been very few Republicans in a powerful position in the state in the last few decades. The ones who did achieve some power weren't worth all that much. . .

Personally, I'll take my RKBA friends where I can find them in whatever party.

I'd even entertain the idea that if we want to achieve our political goals that the way to do it is to join the Democrat party en masse and then be activists within that party for our civil rights.

Hey OleCuss,

Republicrats in Kali have a 60/40 record. Democrats have a 5/95 record.

Ronald Reagan was 90/10. He signed Brady, tax reform act of 1986, and ammnesty for illegal aliens. Reagan blew it! No politician gets it right 100%. Dems are wrong almost always.

Keep voting democrat. Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris are your buddies!

markm

taperxz
10-12-2011, 9:51 AM
Hey taperxz,

You are using a standard union technique. Change the subject.

Eastern courts have ruled that 2A is "in home only." Not me.

Heller had passing references to 2A outside the home. You are rationalizing on so many points.

Are you sure that SCOTUS won't adopt "rational basis" for outside-the-home RKBA? Kennedy is the wildcard. He will probably side with the anti-2A-four on the court on the outside-the-home issue.

You act as though "strict scrutiny" is case law for America on 2A issues--it is not.

You do not understand politics. That is why you vote democrat.

markm


Excuse me? How do you figure? Peruta was denied based on the state allowing UOC OUTSIDE THE HOME ALEADY! You can't now take that back!

Richards has also acknowledged this. The courts can't just one day say yes, we give you the ability to carry outside the home and then on the next day take it away and say you can't carry at all. Ezell already gives us the acknowledgment that outside the home is a right.

I actually understand where you are coming from but your about a year and a half behind the times/court rulings.

Just the fact that you claim to know how i vote (big error on your part) shows you are at best grasping at straws, and are trying to make an argument based on fantasy.

ccmc
10-12-2011, 9:52 AM
CA, NJ, NY are rated 48, 49 and 50 for overall freedom by the Mercatus Center. Why argue over a race to the bottom?

taperxz
10-12-2011, 9:54 AM
Hey OleCuss,

Republicrats in Kali have a 60/40 record. Democrats have a 5/95 record.

Ronald Reagan was 90/10. He signed Brady, tax reform act of 1986, and ammnesty for illegal aliens. Reagan blew it! No politician gets it right 100%. Dems are wrong almost always.

Keep voting democrat. Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris are your buddies!

markm

Now you show your ignorance in regards to blue collar democrats in this country:facepalm:

mrdd
10-12-2011, 9:58 AM
The main point is that in California private sales are banned so ALL long arm transfers from 2014 on will be registered... and it will only be a matter of time before the "voluntary" long gun registration form will be required for "imports".

AB 809 already requires all firearm "imports" to be registered by persons who move into the state starting in 2014.

ccmc
10-12-2011, 11:07 AM
This dynamic state has many issues, more than most countries. For instance if Sarah Palin (who i want to go hunting with) were running this state we would have all the gun rights in the world! Problem is, we would be eating our dead, and working for minimum wage. No one could shoot their guns because no one could afford ammo! Most of our land would be raped for profit and i guarantee SoCal would have NO freaking water flowing from the Great State Of Northern California!

Per capita income is higher in AK than CA for most years from 1980 to 2010.

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html

chuckdc
10-12-2011, 11:30 AM
Duekmegian and Wilson weren't exactly pro-gun. Remember Deukmejian signed the Roberti Roos bill. Pete Wilson did veto bills that would have enhanced Roberti Roos, beyond that I don't recall him signing any other pro-gun bills.

I don't recall Wilson ever being GIVEN a pro-gun bill to sign, but then I haven't done any research on that. He had a Dem legislature for most of his time in office, so it's pretty darn unlikely that a pro-gun bill ever made it to him.

Sorry, but I have to wonder at all the people that think Wilson was such a bad Gov. Considering the cards he was dealt, he did about as well as anyone had a chance to, and he definitely stood his ground when he had conflict. I would vote for him over what CA has now, if I still lived there.

SteveH
10-12-2011, 1:19 PM
Ronald Reagan signed the Brady Bill,



You might want to fact check that one.

Briancnelson
10-12-2011, 1:38 PM
If the best defense of Jerry Brown that can be authored is "Ok, so he's owned by the unions (not even disputable on this point, look at the bills he's signed), he's really awful on immigration (ditto), he's not serious about balancing the state budget or cutting spending in any significant way (the last budget debate should clue you in there), but I voted for him because he was possibly just slightly less bad than the Republican candidate on guns (except it turns out he's probably worse, because she'd at least have had to cater a little bit to the gun lobby to get reelected as a Republican)" then you would have to be a nut to vote for him.

Another example of why single issue voting is BAD. Also an example of how single issue voters are constantly duped by politicians.

If you can create some doubt on the opposing candidate on that single issue, you can then create disillusionment and even get some of them to vote for you, no matter how factually unsupported that doubt may be.

So yeah, there are those of us who looked at his whole record, and refused to vote for him, because we knew he was still Governor Moonbeam, the man who said on radio a few years ago that the state's problem was that it didn't have enough welfare programs. And we knew a left wing politician would be beholden to left-wing causes. And our fears are now borne out.

And still those who were duped are spinning and rationalizing it. And he's continuing to play you by signing bills we support that are low priority for his anti-gun friends, while signing the ones they really want, like the registration legislation. And next election cycle, even if we get Wayne LaPierre to run for Governor, there will be the same effort to confuse and spread FUD, so that just enough of us will keep voting for this yahoo to keep him in office, or at least we won't vote for his opponent. Just remember next time. No matter who the Republican is, they will, by the very nature of their constituency, have to listen more closely to you than a Democrat in order to win election. Even if their previous record is just as bad as Brown's. You cannot win by voting for Jerry Brown. And by the way, you should probably vote on their whole record, not just this issue anyway.

There's a great book on this subject of cognitive dissonance, and how true believers will rationalize away contrary facts called "When Prophecy Fails". It really is a brilliant bit of research performed in that book, and very enlightening about precisely this kind of rationalization in a different context. I recommend it to you for your reading list, those of you who voted for Brown.

taperxz
10-12-2011, 1:51 PM
You might want to fact check that one.

Your right it was Clinton but, Reagan did endorse the bill. He just wasn't prez any more when it finally made it to the desk

kf6tac
10-12-2011, 2:19 PM
Excuse me? How do you figure? Peruta was denied based on the state allowing UOC OUTSIDE THE HOME ALEADY! You can't now take that back!

The court certainly can take it back, unless it specifically stated that UOC was the only possible basis for denying the claim. Judge Gonzales did no such thing in Peruta, and made very clear that she was not reaching the question of the scope of the Second Amendment right at all:

Because Defendant’s policy for issuing concealed carry licenses under section 12050 would pass constitutional muster even if it burdens protected conduct, the Court does not need to decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses Plaintiffs’ asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public.

(emphasis added)

In essence, the court assumed without deciding that the Second Amendment has some indeterminate scope outside the home, and found that regardless of what that assumed scope is, no violation occurred because UOC was available. Now that UOC is unavailable, she's left the door open for herself to go back and say, "Well, now I'm going to actually decide whether or not the Second Amendment protects the asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public, and I decide that it does not."

tankarian
10-12-2011, 2:36 PM
Gov. Brown is no fool

Agreed, he is no fool. Only those who believe Brown is pro gun are.

taperxz
10-12-2011, 2:40 PM
The court certainly can take it back, unless it specifically stated that UOC was the only possible basis for denying the claim. Judge Gonzales did no such thing in Peruta, and made very clear that she was not reaching the question of the scope of the Second Amendment right at all:

Because Defendant’s policy for issuing concealed carry licenses under section 12050 would pass constitutional muster even if it burdens protected conduct, the Court does not need to decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses Plaintiffs’ asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public.

(emphasis added)

In essence, the court assumed without deciding that the Second Amendment has some indeterminate scope outside the home, and found that regardless of what that assumed scope is, no violation occurred because UOC was available. Now that UOC is unavailable, she's left the door open for herself to go back and say, "Well, now I'm going to actually decide whether or not the Second Amendment protects the asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public, and I decide that it does not."

It was already determined that UOC was already an option by law in the state though. This case was purely a loaded concealed carry case. The second amendment right was not addressed as it pertained to Peruta because the state offered him an alternate method of carry a firearm legally. Just not loaded. Now that that is no longer available, the state must offer a way to be able to carry for self defense.

kblack583
10-12-2011, 3:59 PM
Agreed, he is no fool. Only those who believe Brown is pro gun are.

Yes!!!!!

ja308
10-12-2011, 4:40 PM
I checked out gunowners of cal. for the letter grades of the legislature --- nearly every dem is an F and most Rep. are A rated .

If the legislature were GOP --no bad gun bills would be submitted .
BTW Swarnegger is a disgrace .

kf6tac
10-12-2011, 5:05 PM
It was already determined that UOC was already an option by law in the state though. This case was purely a loaded concealed carry case. The second amendment right was not addressed as it pertained to Peruta because the state offered him an alternate method of carry a firearm legally. Just not loaded. Now that that is no longer available, the state must offer a way to be able to carry for self defense.

Or the district court could go back and, since it never addressed the scope of the Second Amendment right in the first instance, decide that the Second Amendment simply doesn't require such a thing at all. It'd be blatantly wrong, and likely to eventually get tossed on appeal, but my point was merely that the court had not, by its own reasoning in Peruta, foreclosed itself from taking this path even in the absence of UOC. If, in the interim, some higher court clearly affirms that the Second Amendment does in fact protect some right to carry for self-defense outside of the home, then Judge Gonzales would probably be trapped by her own reasoning in Peruta in precisely the manner that you've described, but until that link falls into place, there's still an "out" even though UOC is off the table.

taperxz
10-12-2011, 5:07 PM
Or the district court could go back and, since it never addressed the scope of the Second Amendment right in the first instance, decide that the Second Amendment simply doesn't require such a thing at all. It'd be blatantly wrong, and likely to eventually get tossed on appeal, but my point was merely that the court had not, by its own reasoning in Peruta, foreclosed itself from taking this path even in the absence of UOC. If, in the interim, some higher court clearly affirms that the Second Amendment does in fact protect some right to carry for self-defense outside of the home, then Judge Gonzales would probably be trapped by her own reasoning in Peruta in precisely the manner that you've described, but until that link falls into place, there's still an "out" even though UOC is off the table.

OK if all your presumptions are correct, Richards will have the impact IMHO.

epilepticninja
10-12-2011, 7:09 PM
Really? Keep pointing to a an out of the norm traitor like Arnold to somehow justify a democratic vote. Let me know how that works out down the road.

Want to be honest about it? Then put it in the text of supreme court appointments and make the same argument.

So every Republican has our 2A back? I doubt it. RKBA haters come in all shapes and political party sizes. Though I would agree that the Dem's seem to have more of them, but the Repub's aren't completely guilt free either. It seems like the entire political structure of this state is down on 2A. I don't get it myself.

ErikTheRed
10-12-2011, 8:39 PM
Comparing most democrats to most republicans on gun issues is alot like comparing Obama's politics to a pornstar's performance, trying to make the point that they both suck. Well, yeah, I guess they both do, but.....

wildhawker
10-12-2011, 9:11 PM
Comparing most democrats to most republicans on gun issues is alot like comparing Obama's politics to a pornstar's performance, trying to make the point that they both suck. Well, yeah, I guess they both do, but.....

:rofl2: :43:

willm952
10-12-2011, 9:36 PM
Comparing most democrats to most republicans on gun issues is alot like comparing Obama's politics to a pornstar's performance, trying to make the point that they both suck. Well, yeah, I guess they both do, but.....

Agree with your signature completely. He may the Prince but the sheer number of fools does add credible weight. Even a Delta operator can't go it alone against 10,000 unarmed rioters. We need some numbers in our ranks too.

Jared1981
10-12-2011, 11:12 PM
Well that's all fine and dandy, but I think I'll continue to listen to those who are really in the know on these issues, and not listen to those, present company included, that only think they know what's up.

:rockon:

I just gave you facts, there is nothing "what's up" as you put it.

What are those in "the know" on these issues telling you? Let me guess, once SCOTUS hears a few more RKBA cases then Sacramento will rush in the repeal of Roberti-Roos, the repeal of the suppressor ban, and the repeal of registration.

But I guess you are right, having been involved in Rhode Island gun issues, and having done groundwork on organizing case law for NRA v Washington (with Gray Peterson) and Fletcher v Haas. I also got knife preemption off the ground in three states, where it is now law. But like you said, I'm definitely not in the know as I've never spent a day with a politician on a campaign or in their own office while shady backroom deals were going on.

California now joins Hawaii, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana's Islands, D.C, and Puerto Rico on long gun registration, no other state has statewide registration of rifles (the one's Roberti-Roos didn't ban) in 2014.

I guess it's all in Moonbeam's plan to help you guys?

Talk about the Stockholm Syndrome.

Lobbying would not hurt, why doesn't someone in the Sacramento Area offer to take some legislators to the range (not the die hard anti's)? It worked well in Rhode Island.

I understand that may take time away from some people who would rather complain to Gene that he hasn't come to "fix" their county regarding carry licenses.

Jared1981
10-12-2011, 11:20 PM
It was already determined that UOC was already an option by law in the state though. This case was purely a loaded concealed carry case. The second amendment right was not addressed as it pertained to Peruta because the state offered him an alternate method of carry a firearm legally. Just not loaded. Now that that is no longer available, the state must offer a way to be able to carry for self defense.

Not at all. Peruta and Richards were District Court Rulings, they are not binding precedent. If the two hacks (I mean judges) wanted to take the matter seriously, they would have seen that Heller mentioned the right to arms included the right to a fully functional firearm, an unloaded firearm is not fully functional by definition.

taperxz
10-12-2011, 11:28 PM
Not at all. Peruta and Richards were District Court Rulings, they are not binding precedent. If the two hacks (I mean judges) wanted to take the matter seriously, they would have seen that Heller mentioned the right to arms included the right to a fully functional firearm, an unloaded firearm is not fully functional by definition.

I understand what you are saying, point being though that when Richards hits the 9th, what Judge England said about Peruta, and carry, WILL have to be taken into consideration. Richards in the 9th will be a FULL review of the entire case.

DannyInSoCal
10-12-2011, 11:49 PM
Does anyone else find it strange that NOTHING ever happens to diminish our fight for LTC...?

"Every" asinine anti-2A legislation seems to hide a magical "silver lining" twist.

If anyone thinks outlawing UOC is somehow the secret to LTC success -

You are obviously delusional in thinking that actual common sense applies to Kalifornistan legislation.

I can easily see how in a few months - Some liberal judge spouts off about the "only in your home" as an answer to the UOC ban and continued LTC denials...

santamonica9
10-13-2011, 12:55 AM
So since Gov. J.Brown signed in NO UnloadedOpenCarry of handguns, can I sling my 12g over my shoulder and walk around to defend myself b/c I cant keep a police officer in my pocket???

I pray CA becomes a Shall Issue - here in Los Angeles we are stuck with Sherif Baca who denies most their rights. just look at the numbers

wildhawker
10-13-2011, 1:00 AM
Lobbying would not hurt, why doesn't someone in the Sacramento Area offer to take some legislators to the range (not the die hard anti's)? It worked well in Rhode Island.

We have a great team of professional and grassroots legislative liaisons. No amount of lobbying will repeal a ban or secure our right to bear arms.

SCOTUS and CA9 decisions will give us the precedent we need to seek injunctive relief.

-Brandon

wildhawker
10-13-2011, 1:03 AM
You're letting emotions cloud your ability to view the field. Take a deep breath and look a few layers beyond today.

-Brandon

Does anyone else find it strange that NOTHING ever happens to diminish our fight for LTC...?

"Every" asinine anti-2A legislation seems to hide a magical "silver lining" twist.

If anyone thinks outlawing UOC is somehow the secret to LTC success -

You are obviously delusional in thinking that actual common sense applies to Kalifornistan legislation.

I can easily see how in a few months - Some liberal judge spouts off about the "only in your home" as an answer to the UOC ban and continued LTC denials...

kblack583
10-13-2011, 6:42 AM
So every Republican has our 2A back? I doubt it. RKBA haters come in all shapes and political party sizes. Though I would agree that the Dem's seem to have more of them, but the Repub's aren't completely guilt free either. It seems like the entire political structure of this state is down on 2A. I don't get it myself.

Never said every Republican has our 2A back. The majority of the Republican party does support our 2A rights and the majority of the Democrats don't. This is pretty cut and dry.

Original comments were targeted at those justifying Browns actions by speculating what Meg would have done worse. Its the old "What about" argument that is used to deflect from a weak postition with no real defense.

Your comment that the entire state structure is is down on 2A rights is spot on. Its a Democratic state!!! Republican officials have no real chance of moving any substantial pro-2A legistlation through the process. Whether we want to admit it or not, Brown in office only helps to perpetuate and solidify the Democratic base which only hurts our cause even more. Wonder if there will be a Republican candidate bad enough for some to justify Gavin Newsom's actions when he is running the state.

OleCuss
10-13-2011, 8:07 AM
I would agree that the majority of Republican leadership supports the RBKA whereas the majority of Democrat leadership opposes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Our fight for our civil rights needs every friend it can get. It is important to make those with even an interest in the fight for our rights to feel welcome no matter what political party they may belong to, what country they were born in, what church they may go to, etc.

A friend is a friend.

ja308
10-13-2011, 8:22 AM
as will thinking this is a den vs rep issue.

simply being a republican does NOT make one a friend of the 2nd. thinking that it does has done more harm then good. Since 1983 there have been 4 govenors, 3 R, 1 D. Of those 3, 2 did as much damage to your RKBA as did the 1 democrat, Davis. So far, while not ideal by any means, Gov Brown hasn't done any significant damage and maybe even (intentional or not. open to debate I guess) done us some "favors". But regardless he hasn't done any significant damage to your RKBAs. So far a lot less than George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger did. and they were both Republican.

This isn't a party issue, it's a Civil Rights issue. please treat it as such and stop making it a party issue. personally I want to win. Don't you?

Suggest you google democratic party platform 2008 and republican party platform 2008 .
The written word may help you decide whether your statements are valid.
respectfully

ja308
10-13-2011, 12:21 PM
as will thinking this is a den vs rep issue.

simply being a republican does NOT make one a friend of the 2nd. thinking that it does has done more harm then good. Since 1983 there have been 4 govenors, 3 R, 1 D. Of those 3, 2 did as much damage to your RKBA as did the 1 democrat, Davis. So far, while not ideal by any means, Gov Brown hasn't done any significant damage and maybe even (intentional or not. open to debate I guess) done us some "favors". But regardless he hasn't done any significant damage to your RKBAs. So far a lot less than George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger did. and they were both Republican.

This isn't a party issue, it's a Civil Rights issue. please treat it as such and stop making it a party issue. personally I want to win. Don't you?

According to Gunowners of california --the Cal Senate has 2 democrats with A ratings. they have 12 with F rating.

republican's have 11 --A rated and 0 - F

So if you want to win -- the choice seems obvious .
You can get democrats to change by working against them or vote republican .

I was a democrat --probably before you were born -- they had ZERO respect for my gun rights --- after several letters. I changed party affiliation and work very hard in the primaries to get pro gun candidates .

Further nearly every state controlled by democrats is anti gun . NY-Illinois-CT etc .

hoffmang
10-13-2011, 10:28 PM
According to Gunowners of california --the Cal Senate has 2 democrats with A ratings. they have 12 with F rating.

republican's have 11 --A rated and 0 - F

So if you want to win -- the choice seems obvious .

Snrk.

Name me a California A rated Republican sponsored gun bill that got out of it's first committee in the last 2 years. Heck, for that matter show me which "A" rated Reep even sponsored a pro-gun bill...

:gene:

-Gene

MrExel17
10-13-2011, 10:34 PM
"Time will tell"

I agree

ZX-10R
10-14-2011, 6:58 AM
Serves Ca RIGHT. This state deserves what it gets. Vote democrats in...CA you are silly.

kblack583
10-14-2011, 7:03 AM
Snrk.

Name me a California A rated Republican sponsored gun bill that got out of it's first committee in the last 2 years. Heck, for that matter show me which "A" rated Reep even sponsored a pro-gun bill...

:gene:

-Gene

Your on the front lines. Tell us why they haven't. Are you saying they don't support ou]r 2A rights?

dantodd
10-14-2011, 7:09 AM
Your on the front lines. Tell us why they haven't. Are you saying they don't support ou]r 2A rights?

BECAUSE THEY ARE A MINORITY WITH NO POWER. A REPUBLICAN CAN'T MOVE A BOWEL IN SACRAMENTO MUCH LESS A PRO-GUN BILL.

The Shadow
10-14-2011, 7:26 AM
I just gave you facts, there is nothing "what's up" as you put it.

What are those in "the know" on these issues telling you? Let me guess, once SCOTUS hears a few more RKBA cases then Sacramento will rush in the repeal of Roberti-Roos, the repeal of the suppressor ban, and the repeal of registration.

I'm simply staying focused on what Gene, Brandon, Don, Chuck, and Alan are saying. So do you think they're all wrong ?

But I guess you are right, having been involved in Rhode Island gun issues, and having done groundwork on organizing case law for NRA v Washington (with Gray Peterson) and Fletcher v Haas. I also got knife preemption off the ground in three states, where it is now law. But like you said, I'm definitely not in the know as I've never spent a day with a politician on a campaign or in their own office while shady backroom deals were going on.

Then you are apparently the lone pessimist among the group of people in the know who seem to disagree with you.

California now joins Hawaii, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana's Islands, D.C, and Puerto Rico on long gun registration, no other state has statewide registration of rifles (the one's Roberti-Roos didn't ban) in 2014.

It's still two years away. A lot can happen in that time frame.

I guess it's all in Moonbeam's plan to help you guys?
Talk about the Stockholm Syndrome.

I never said that he would help. It's just that he hasn't hurt us either.

Lobbying would not hurt, why doesn't someone in the Sacramento Area offer to take some legislators to the range (not the die hard anti's)? It worked well in Rhode Island.

Does Rhode Island have "Shall Issue" ? I think not.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/rhodeisland.pdf

Rhode Island pretty much sounds like California.
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/RISL.pdf

I understand that may take time away from some people who would rather complain to Gene that he hasn't come to "fix" their county regarding carry licenses.

Apparently you didn't learn much from your alleged exposure.

Trailboss60
10-14-2011, 7:37 AM
BECAUSE THEY ARE A MINORITY WITH NO POWER. A REPUBLICAN CAN'T MOVE A BOWEL IN SACRAMENTO MUCH LESS A PRO-GUN BILL.

winner, winner, chicken dinner.

The current crop of legislators were well schooled at the feet of Willie Brown on how to run the legislature like the Cosa nostra.

kblack583
10-14-2011, 8:14 AM
BECAUSE THEY ARE A MINORITY WITH NO POWER. A REPUBLICAN CAN'T MOVE A BOWEL IN SACRAMENTO MUCH LESS A PRO-GUN BILL.

Well put!!!

Jared1981
10-14-2011, 11:27 AM
I'm simply staying focused on what Gene, Brandon, Don, Chuck, and Alan are saying. So do you think they're all wrong ?



Then you are apparently the lone pessimist among the group of people in the know who seem to disagree with you.



It's still two years away. A lot can happen in that time frame.



I never said that he would help. It's just that he hasn't hurt us either.



Does Rhode Island have "Shall Issue" ? I think not.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/rhodeisland.pdf

Rhode Island pretty much sounds like California.
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/RISL.pdf



Apparently you didn't learn much from your alleged exposure.

Wrong on the facts again, Rhode Island 11-47-11 answers the shall issue question. The may issue statute is 11-47-18. There is also no high cap ban or AWB. Also, in RI, it is a FELONY for a government official to register firearms.

RI is nothing like CA.

So yes, I did learn quite a bit from my "exposure". You could as well if your RKBA efforts extended outside CALGUNS. You see, having a couple thousand posts on a forum doesn't count for anything, maybe if you have a couple thousand more, that would really show your crusader status.

Show me where Gene, Alan, or anyone is in direct conflict with what I said, you will not be able to because I'm not. I am less optimistic about the court battles... and having actual experience (unlike you I would presume) with helping with these things and seeing the outcome, I have good reason to be.

You are missing the point that the legislature is a VERY big problem for you, don't blame the messenger.

You are being delusional if you think Moonbeam helped you. Long gun registration... if that somehow helps the cause through some strategic chess court battle then wouldn't a complete ban on firearms do the same?

The Moonbeam apologists on this forum are insane, they sound no different than a battered crack whore from the Detroit area who has 10,000 excuses for the bruises on her because her baby-daddy isn't a bad guy.

It's not about who else could be governor or whatever else, as some people are eluding to...but to make excuses for an anti-gun politician is over the top and something that could only be possible in California.

curtisfong
10-14-2011, 11:42 AM
BTW so much for Brown being "impervious" to public opinion since "he's not up for re-election".

Any way we can convince Brown that the perception of anti-gunners wrt to his gun-control stance is irrelevant?

taperxz
10-14-2011, 11:53 AM
Wrong on the facts again, Rhode Island 11-47-11 answers the shall issue question. The may issue statute is 11-47-18. There is also no high cap ban or AWB. Also, in RI, it is a FELONY for a government official to register firearms.

RI is nothing like CA.

So yes, I did learn quite a bit from my "exposure". You could as well if your RKBA efforts extended outside CALGUNS. You see, having a couple thousand posts on a forum doesn't count for anything, maybe if you have a couple thousand more, that would really show your crusader status.

Show me where Gene, Alan, or anyone is in direct conflict with what I said, you will not be able to because I'm not. I am less optimistic about the court battles... and having actual experience (unlike you I would presume) with helping with these things and seeing the outcome, I have good reason to be.

You are missing the point that the legislature is a VERY big problem for you, don't blame the messenger.

You are being delusional if you think Moonbeam helped you. Long gun registration... if that somehow helps the cause through some strategic chess court battle then wouldn't a complete ban on firearms do the same?

The Moonbeam apologists on this forum are insane, they sound no different than a battered crack whore from the Detroit area who has 10,000 excuses for the bruises on her because her baby-daddy isn't a bad guy.

It's not about who else could be governor or whatever else, as some people are eluding to...but to make excuses for an anti-gun politician is over the top and something that could only be possible in California.

A lot of this is rhetoric, What everyone loses sight of is that there were in fact 600 bills. Rhode Island is not a fair comparison to CA as most states are not. California is like a country economically. Rhode Island is like a freaking county in CA.

The governor of this state has a lot more on his mind than 2A. IMHO he did give away things we wanted/didn't want to lose. However, as a politician he had get other things that may have been more important to the state right now than some of the fringe stuff he gave away.

What he gave away, i believe he gave away knowing that in the end the gun lobby could somewhat undo what he signed. Long gun registration, a likely repeal candidate via the courts. UOC, OK, There are a lot of people on this very forum that were against UOC to begin with and their opinions are their opinions and valid for not wanting a brother to carry an unloaded weapon, So JB felt the same way, which maybe in his opinion opens the door to LTC. He was a pretty friendly AG to gun owners. Personally IMHO one needs to look at things in an algebraic way here. Of course to some algebra makes no sense to some and they will never understand the big equation.

He certainly would not allow the legislature regulate our ammo!

Jared1981
10-14-2011, 12:21 PM
A lot of this is rhetoric, What everyone loses sight of is that there were in fact 600 bills. Rhode Island is not a fair comparison to CA as most states are not. California is like a country economically. Rhode Island is like a freaking county in CA.

The governor of this state has a lot more on his mind than 2A. IMHO he did give away things we wanted/didn't want to lose.

Of course to some algebra makes no sense to some and they will never understand the big equation.

He certainly would not allow the legislature regulate our ammo!

The amount of bills he had to sign is irrelevant. He could have done what Gary Johnson did in New Mexico, which was veto bills. If the legislature thought that they could overwhelm him with bills at the end of the session, then he could have sent a message by vetoing a ton.

The size of California is irrelevant and it's a pathetic excuse. He has a staff, they could have organized bills and summarize what he wanted them to summarize.

There is no Algebra here. This is similar to the baby-daddy excuses. I'd bet my life that if he had a bill on his desk that would have disbanded state employee unions or a bill that would have privatized the state prisons that he would have found the time or resources to veto it.

I'm not saying the moonbat is a gun grabber, I am saying that it is very foolish to think that he is on our side and I'm willing to bet that long gun registration will stand in 2014. Anyone want to bet? I'll bet a Kimber.

prod39
10-14-2011, 12:31 PM
Geriatric Clown was a worthless piece of excrement the first time in office
and,
He is worse this time.

kblack583
10-14-2011, 1:48 PM
I'll bet Detroit crack whores and algebra have never been referenced in the same thread ever on this site!!!! You gotta love it!!!

hoffmang
10-14-2011, 7:04 PM
Your on the front lines. Tell us why they haven't. Are you saying they don't support ou]r 2A rights?
They aren't willing to spend their political capital on 2A bills. You should call and ask your chief of staff or legislative aide at a Republican state legislator why they will not introduce pro-gun bills. You'll get a very political answer. If they say they will, tell them you'll have me or Ed Worley at NRA give them a call. Then you'll get a whole 'nother political bob and weave...

-Gene

Skidmark
10-14-2011, 7:09 PM
BECAUSE THEY ARE A MINORITY WITH NO POWER. A REPUBLICAN CAN'T MOVE A BOWEL IN SACRAMENTO MUCH LESS A PRO-GUN BILL.

What do you mean, no power? :rolleyes:

The obdurate Republicans have held every budget hostage for years in this state, where a 2/3 majority is needed for any tax increases. They durn well have power, and they know it - and flex it.

hoffmang
10-14-2011, 7:15 PM
What do you mean, no power? :rolleyes:

The obdurate Republicans have held every budget hostage for years in this state, where a 2/3 majority is needed for any tax increases. They durn well have power, and they know it - and flex it.

That was last session. Redistricting looks like it stripped even this ability...

"Democracy" of one party creates Chicago...

-Gene

diginit
10-14-2011, 7:44 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.

Chameleon or snake? I gave him the benefit of the doubt until he signed the long gun reg. A total waste of money. Proven by other states and countries that tried it. Face it! He signed EVERY anti gun bill that would harm legal ownership. 809, 819, and 144...Waste of money or not, After promising he would not sign money wasting bills. He would have signed 427 too, But he knew better... I hope his and his sponsors' back pockets explode and blow their brains all over the seat...

creekside
10-14-2011, 9:16 PM
They aren't willing to spend their political capital on 2A bills. You should call and ask your chief of staff or legislative aide at a Republican state legislator why they will not introduce pro-gun bills. You'll get a very political answer. If they say they will, tell them you'll have me or Ed Worley at NRA give them a call. Then you'll get a whole 'nother political bob and weave...

-Gene

Correct. If a member introduces something which has no prayer of passing, this is a distraction for their staff and a hit to their prestige. If a party supports a measure which has no prayer of passing, the same, only many-fold.

Which part of the Republican power base do you think they want to alienate to try (and usually fail) to get a gun bill passed? They are not going to hold up the budget over a guns bill.

This is the Legislature that passed a long gun registration bill, an open carry bill and an ammunition bill. Never forget this. Jerry ate most of the dinner that was set before him. We have theories on his motives for doing so, but at least he did not polish off his plate the way I believe Meg Whitman would have, and Kamala Harris certainly would.

The Republicans did register their protest but simply did not have the votes.

House vote AB 144 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=35018), passed 46-29.

Democrats: 46 "Yes," 3 "No," 3 "No Vote"

Republicans: 26 "No," 2 "No Vote"

House vote AB 809 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGUfwvH00Gk), passed 44-2.

Democrats: 44 "Yes," 2 "No"
Republicans: 34 "No Vote" (walked off the floor as a body in protest)

If you want Gun Rights in California, don't vote for a Democratic Assembly member! It's really that simple.

Zebra
10-14-2011, 10:21 PM
It's fairly obvious that froth at the mouth has become more important than advancing anything.

Carry on, Gents!

F.

Sgt Raven
10-15-2011, 3:41 PM
I'm not saying the moonbat is a gun grabber, I am saying that it is very foolish to think that he is on our side and I'm willing to bet that long gun registration will stand in 2014. Anyone want to bet? I'll bet a Kimber.

Do you think calling the Governor of California stupid names helps the situation? :facepalm: :rolleyes:

Jared1981
10-15-2011, 6:32 PM
Do you think calling the Governor of California stupid names helps the situation? :facepalm: :rolleyes:

WOW....More baby daddy worship. Sorry if I insulted the Dear Leader, the emperor of the empire....give me a break. Most political hacks have nicknames, get over it.

I personally would assign most politicians names... except for Ron Paul.

Should I have referred to him as "Moonbat the union hack"?:tt2:

If you really want to help the situation, you need to start by identifying the problem. From what I'm seeing, many worshipers will not be able to identify the problem if they are looking at a bad situation and trying to rationalize why it's good.

Zebra
10-15-2011, 8:21 PM
Indeed a helpful post...

Froth tasty?

"We have met the enemy and he is us." –Pogo

F.

WOW....More baby daddy worship. Sorry if I insulted the Dear Leader, the emperor of the empire....give me a break. Most political hacks have nicknames, get over it.

I personally would assign most politicians names... except for Ron Paul.

Should I have referred to him as "Moonbat the union hack"?:tt2:

If you really want to help the situation, you need to start by identifying the problem. From what I'm seeing, many worshipers will not be able to identify the problem if they are looking at a bad situation and trying to rationalize why it's good.

oaklander
10-15-2011, 8:37 PM
Gerry Brown is a chameleon of sorts. By signing the anti-gun bills he can pander to his base, while at the same time serve us up a beautiful pitch. It's up to us to take that pitch and knock it outta the park. There is a silver lining to that dark cloud. As Gene always says "chess, not checkers." I think the Governor plays chess too, and he's not sitting across from us.

This is exactly correct. Purple K, Gene, the rest of CGF, and me - have access to more information than the average gun owner (it comes from us doing the work).

I hang out with people who spend time with him. It is not like I/we just speculate on things. These opinions are based on reality, not on legend.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

oaklander
10-15-2011, 8:50 PM
Lobbying would not hurt, why doesn't someone in the Sacramento Area offer to take some legislators to the range (not the die hard anti's)? It worked well in Rhode Island.

Yes, Gray's a good guy!

On the "take a politican-to-the-range" thing, I have contacts who can supply all sorts of NFA weapons, if we ever want to show them what an ASSAULT RIFLE is. Some seem to think that "if is black, it is a machine gun."

On the political stuff, it is too complex to even describe.

The reason litigation is SUPER important is that California politics are EXTREMELY COMPLEX. In a chaotic way, which is due to the history, size, diversity, and geography of our fine state. I personally LOVE the Golden State, and I am glad that we are fixing it. But knife law is not gun law, RI is not CA, and you should call Gray now and then to get a "reality check" on things. I do. . .

;-)


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Jared1981
10-15-2011, 9:41 PM
Yes, Gray's a good guy!

On the "take a politican-to-the-range" thing, I have contacts who can supply all sorts of NFA weapons, if we ever want to show them what an ASSAULT RIFLE is. Some seem to think that "if is black, it is a machine gun."

On the political stuff, it is too complex to even describe.

The reason litigation is SUPER important is that California politics are EXTREMELY COMPLEX. In a chaotic way, which is due to the history, size, diversity, and geography of our fine state. I personally LOVE the Golden State, and I am glad that we are fixing it. But knife law is not gun law, RI is not CA, and you should call Gray now and then to get a "reality check" on things. I do. . .

;-)


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

The knife law thing was a side project. I've been involved in carry problems and a little experience in domestic violence bills.

I can accept that CA is very complex, but it still can be explained. If the legislature is passing bad bills, then it's simply anti-rights; that part is not complicated and I understand that nothing can be done about this at the present time.

I understand better than many that state legislatures around the U.S. are very different in demographics, ideas, and everything else. The New Hampshire General Court members only gets $100 a year. California and Michigan legislators get a huge salary and a pension (and all other neat perks for the royalty). The mindset in state capitols varies to a huge degree.

I'm calling Moonbeam for what he is on this, there is no secret plan.

Saying there is some sort of secret plan or some sort of reasoning for this would be no different than saying that back in 1993, the Clinton Gun Ban was passed because Clinton really had an affinity for the Second Amendment and he wanted it to be declared by SCOTUS as an individual right so he signed bad gun bills into law hoping SCOTUS would take the bait with the assault weapons law, and if SCOTUS didn't take it, then the law would sunset anyway so there was really no severe harm.

If Moonbeam had a secret plan or told anyone different... guess what (huge shocker), he probably lied like many politicians do. I know it may be a shock to many, but politicians lie more often than the sun rising in the east.


This is the same naive political thinking that the republicans experienced in the last decade. They really thought McCain-Feingold was signed into law because baby Bush really wanted SCOTUS to strike it down so the issue would be dead, but we all know that SCOTUS upheld the law for a decade and we were stuck with campaign restrictions and free speech restrictions that one would expect from Mozambique. Fortunately a better Supreme Court took care of this one with the Citizen's United case.

Even if Brown had the best intentions and signed the long gun registration bill into law hoping it may get struck down, it may not and that is playing with fire.

1911 Fan
10-16-2011, 10:37 AM
I don't know who is more foolish , moonbeam or the kalifornia electorate?http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/10/californias-clown-king-jerry-brown-unleashes-his-special-brand-of-lunacy/

oaklander
10-16-2011, 12:37 PM
;-)

I am smiling because I no longer have to speculate on things. Also, Jared - you seem like a nice guy - but please climb out of your mental dungeon.

You mistake cause and effect, and you seem to not understand how causes can have no effects, and effects can be without cause. You are also getting diverted by (and outlining) details that simply do not matter.

Which law school did you say you attended? They teach us a type of thinking that allows us to see through things, as you most certainly know.

;-)

On a more practical level, please reconsider your actions. You are now arguing with people who work with Gray on a daily basis. Is he the only person you know in CA?

Please do not tell me that the other person's name is Sam.

ROFL

You kind of sound like you are being fed talking points, and I know they are not coming from Gray. So, who is it?

OR, did you just make all of these things up in your head? Again, I know folks who know the Gov and work with his staff. I also know people here in Oaktown who knew him when he was here. Your speculation, namecalling, and somewhat wooden thinking is telling me that you talk more than you listen. The key here is to empty your head and listen. Right now, you have no room in your thinking for the useful information we are trying to impart to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rt66paul
10-16-2011, 2:07 PM
A locked weapon is not a functional firearm. A locked firearm, is firearm that is not being carried.

Imagine if a city said you had to keep a handgun in your safe at home unless in an emergency.

In an emergency they would come to your door and confiscate it, by declaring martial law. Better you have it stashed somewhere else.

AB 809 already requires all firearm "imports" to be registered by persons who move into the state starting in 2014.

The real problem here is all the "imports" that have found their way to California in the last 40-50 years. My parents were born here in the 20s, my wife's parents also and on one side, her great grand parents were here about the time Calif got statehood. Believe me, Calif was a much better place to live in the 50s and 60s. You can call them liberals if you like, but it was all the people from corrupt Yankee big cities that ruined Calif.

HBrebel
10-16-2011, 2:10 PM
Wrong. Brown is 100% against gun rights. Those of you who think that the ban on unloaded open carry will lead to a "shall issue" regime in California for carry permits are simply wrong too. All of Brown's actions evidence a deep hostility to gun rights in common with all Democrats. And these people can pass 20 anti-gun laws for every one that we get overturned or weakened in the courts, which is exactly what is happening.

Keep voting Democrat and you will destroy what little gun rights we have left in California.Brown believes in the ruling class having guns but not us. He also is gonna let cops rummage thru our cell phones without cause. Time to recall this chump

OleCuss
10-16-2011, 2:39 PM
Y'know? I think I'd carefully read what oaklander has been posting in the thread. He is hinting at stuff that he knows that we don't.

Personally, I didn't vote for Brown. Anyone who supported AB32 like he does is too nutty or stupid to ever get my vote (sorry to any of you who might have been taken in by that stuff).

I'd also note that even before Brown was elected we had CGF board members telling us not to believe that JB was in our hip pocket. The impression I had was that if we kept the drama at a minimum that JB would find it more politically possible to be more helpful (or less unhelpful) than would Meg Whitman. It was pretty heavily qualified support.

In this case, JB was more helpful than was the legislature. That counts for something.

dantodd
10-16-2011, 2:49 PM
Brown believes in the ruling class having guns but not us. He also is gonna let cops rummage thru our cell phones without cause. Time to recall this chump

You can say ALOT of things about Brown and his politics. Calling him an elitist shows zero knowledge of history or of the man.

oaklander
10-16-2011, 3:31 PM
Everyone here wants things to be black or white, either/or, up or down, and right or left.

The real world is not like that. Politics IS people. And people are more complex than what you read on a blog, or tweet out, or see on YouTube.

ACTUALLY, you guys ever notice how strange the videos are on YouTube? Well, the real world is about 10,000 times stranger than that. Only when you understand complexity, will you understand what happens in civil rights politics.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

vincewarde
10-16-2011, 4:52 PM
1) The governor is a state wide office.

2) Most people in California are anti-gun (sorry, it's true)

3) Therefore, it is a political risk for ANY governor to oppose ANY anti-gun bill

It really doesn't matter what party they are from, there is a lot of pressure to sign anti-gun bills and to veto pro-gun bills - especially in their first term when they have to be concerned about re-election.

Given these facts, Jerry Brown bucks the trend, not because he is 100% on our side, but because there are limits to what he will sign. I think it is accurate to say that he clearly believes in a 2nd Amendment right, but probably does not believe that it should be accorded strict scrutiny. Therefore, he believes that government has the right and responsibility to enact "reasonable" laws that do not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment as he views it.

This is consistent with his recent actions. He believes that banning open carry is reasonable (even if it results in the issuance of more CCW permits), but that requiring applicants for CCW permits to jump through all the hoops and spend a great deal of money only to be told that they do not have "good cause" is probably not constitutional. Remember, that this served to keep many people from applying. Even under intermediate scrutiny, it probably doesn't pass.

With regard to registration, Gov. Brown probably sees long gun registration at the time of purchase as no more burdensome than our current system, while the ammo bill clearly went too far in harassing gun owners every time they bought ammo. Again, consistent with a view of the 2nd Amendment as a right subject to intermediate scrutiny (although the recent ruling in Heller II may prove him wrong).

So, the real question is: Are we better off with a governor who believes in a 2nd Amendment right subject to intermediate scrutiny then with someone like our previous governor who clearly does not believe in any 2nd Amendment right at all?

I think the answer is obvious.

dantodd
10-16-2011, 5:35 PM
So, the real question is: Are we better off with a governor who believes in a 2nd Amendment right subject to strict scrutiny then with someone like our previous governor who clearly does not believe in any 2nd Amendment right at all?

I think the answer is obvious.

I'm not sure our last governor knows what "strict scrutiny" means.

Jared1981
10-16-2011, 7:34 PM
;-)

I am smiling because I no longer have to speculate on things. Also, Jared - you seem like a nice guy - but please climb out of your mental dungeon.

You mistake cause and effect, and you seem to not understand how causes can have no effects, and effects can be without cause. You are also getting diverted by (and outlining) details that simply do not matter.

Which law school did you say you attended? They teach us a type of thinking that allows us to see through things, as you most certainly know.

;-)

On a more practical level, please reconsider your actions. You are now arguing with people who work with Gray on a daily basis. Is he the only person you know in CA?

Please do not tell me that the other person's name is Sam.

ROFL

You kind of sound like you are being fed talking points, and I know they are not coming from Gray. So, who is it?

OR, did you just make all of these things up in your head? Again, I know folks who know the Gov and work with his staff. I also know people here in Oaktown who knew him when he was here. Your speculation, namecalling, and somewhat wooden thinking is telling me that you talk more than you listen. The key here is to empty your head and listen. Right now, you have no room in your thinking for the useful information we are trying to impart to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know who Sam is, and you have yet to refute anything I said. I know Meg Whitman would have been worse but that does not make Brown pro-RKBA; maybe he's lukewarm to it, lukewarm does not mean friendly or reliable.

The core is that the governor is no friend of gun owners, if he was, then why don't you tell us since you apparently are on the "in". So why did things happen as they did?

Let me guess, it's either a secret or it's too complicated, right?

You say I do a lot of talking and a little listening; In 2 and a half years, I only posted 74 times, you posted over 10,000 times. It seems like you do a lot of the talking and I do a lot of the listening, I'm just not going to blindly follow you and donate money because we are all apparently too stupid to comprehend the grand plan.

Speaking of the grand plan, you should not try to assume so much about others and put them down, if it is acceptable for you to assume so much then would it not be rash for me to assume that you are a typical snot-nosed Californian who thinks they are better than the peasants from the other 49 states because our people as a whole are not as rich and pretty as you all are??? That would be rash for me to assume so it would be decent for you as someone in a leadership position in the California RKBA movement to perhaps answer these questions without being condescending.

vincewarde
10-16-2011, 7:42 PM
I'm not sure our last governor knows what "strict scrutiny" means.

I'm sure Arnold doesn't.

BTW, my mistake. I intended to write "intermediate scrutiny". I have corrected it :)

oaklander
10-16-2011, 9:34 PM
I don't know who Sam is, and you have yet to refute anything I said. I know Meg Whitman would have been worse but that does not make Brown pro-RKBA; maybe he's lukewarm to it, lukewarm does not mean friendly or reliable.

The core is that the governor is no friend of gun owners, if he was, then why don't you tell us since you apparently are on the "in". So why did things happen as they did?

Let me guess, it's either a secret or it's too complicated, right?

You say I do a lot of talking and a little listening; In 2 and a half years, I only posted 74 times, you posted over 10,000 times. It seems like you do a lot of the talking and I do a lot of the listening, I'm just not going to blindly follow you and donate money because we are all apparently too stupid to comprehend the grand plan.

Speaking of the grand plan, you should not try to assume so much about others and put them down, if it is acceptable for you to assume so much then would it not be rash for me to assume that you are a typical snot-nosed Californian who thinks they are better than the peasants from the other 49 states because our people as a whole are not as rich and pretty as you all are??? That would be rash for me to assume so it would be decent for you as someone in a leadership position in the California RKBA movement to perhaps answer these questions without being condescending.

Much anger, this one has.

Works out of hate, he does.

http://tapatalk.com/mu/3283aaf7-b048-cecf.jpg

Seriously, dude - you are eating too many of those Subway Sandwiches or something! Everyone knows about my German Shephard, "Sam."

;-)

You are taking things too personally. We are all friends here. I would chat longer, but my private jet is waiting.

ETA: my wife just said that I was too mean to you. Sorry about that! I actually *do* like your new chipotle sauce!!!

Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Jared1981
10-16-2011, 10:22 PM
Much anger, this one has.

Works out of hate, he does.

http://tapatalk.com/mu/3283aaf7-b048-cecf.jpg

Seriously, dude - you are eating too many of those Subway Sandwiches or something! Everyone knows about my German Shephard, "Sam."

;-)

You are taking things too personally. We are all friends here. I would chat longer, but my private jet is waiting.

ETA: my wife just said that I was too mean to you. Sorry about that! I actually *do* like your new chipotle sauce!!!

Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

I'm not mad or angry at all, I did not mean to come across that way. My statement about Californian's being snobby and uptight was meant to illustrate and compare how you were treating those questioning you.

BTW, Subway is ok.... I prefer Jersey Mike's or even Sheetz (Pennsylvania company).


That being said, how does long gun registration help us? Will you answer this question or not.

oaklander
10-16-2011, 11:09 PM
I'm not mad or angry at all, I did not mean to come across that way. My statement about Californian's being snobby and uptight was meant to illustrate and compare how you were treating those questioning you.

BTW, Subway is ok.... I prefer Jersey Mike's or even Sheetz (Pennsylvania company).


That being said, how does long gun registration help us? Will you answer this question or not.

You are not reading between the lines, and you do not seem to understand that politics is people. You also seem to really want to argue with me. I do not set litigation strategy, and I do not even follow the litigation. I throw BBQ's.

I am nobody, and I am treating you with bemused interest, if I am treating you at all.

My true interest is in figuring out why you are in this thread. Are you volunteering to help us? Either "do" - or not "do."

I am not really here to answer your questions. I likely do not even know the answers. My sole message is simple:

"Brown is not opposition."

I simply do not care about you, as a person. Right now, you are pixels. And from what you have written, it appears to me that you are not useful to us. So, you will remain pixels.

ETA: Jared - seriously - if you actually want to help our team in CA, you will need to listen to the Elders. We can familiarize you with the landscape. But please do not even TRY to do anything here without working with us. We absolutely know what we are doing, and we are VERY good at it. We finally have ONE WINNING TEAM. And someone from out-of-state, even if well-meaning, like you are - well, you simply can't do anything here, and expect it to succeed.

You ABSOLUTELY need to work with a TEAM of local guides. Here, you are offending the very people who can, and WILL help you. ALL I need to know is why you are in this thread. At this point, I think your sole purpose is to destroy your reputation in our community here. If you continue to refuse our attempts to educate you, we will start to HAVE TO THINK THAT YOU ARE NOT RATIONAL.

Do you understand the dynamic now, Mr. Sandwich?

;-)

Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Jared1981
10-17-2011, 9:38 AM
You are not reading between the lines, and you do not seem to understand that politics is people. You also seem to really want to argue with me. I do not set litigation strategy, and I do not even follow the litigation. I throw BBQ's.

I am nobody, and I am treating you with bemused interest, if I am treating you at all.

My true interest is in figuring out why you are in this thread. Are you volunteering to help us? Either "do" - or not "do."

I am not really here to answer your questions. I likely do not even know the answers. My sole message is simple:

"Brown is not opposition."

I simply do not care about you, as a person. Right now, you are pixels. And from what you have written, it appears to me that you are not useful to us. So, you will remain pixels.

ETA: Jared - seriously - if you actually want to help our team in CA, you will need to listen to the Elders. We can familiarize you with the landscape. But please do not even TRY to do anything here without working with us. We absolutely know what we are doing, and we are VERY good at it. We finally have ONE WINNING TEAM. And someone from out-of-state, even if well-meaning, like you are - well, you simply can't do anything here, and expect it to succeed.

You ABSOLUTELY need to work with a TEAM of local guides. Here, you are offending the very people who can, and WILL help you. ALL I need to know is why you are in this thread. At this point, I think your sole purpose is to destroy your reputation in our community here. If you continue to refuse our attempts to educate you, we will start to HAVE TO THINK THAT YOU ARE NOT RATIONAL.

Do you understand the dynamic now, Mr. Sandwich?

;-)

Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

So you still don't want to answer the question about long gun registration. I've asked 4 times, and you as CGF board member can't answer that. You ask why I'm on this thread, it's because I am shocked that people on here are defending his signature on the long gun registration bill, that's why.

That's not wanting to argue, it's simply being evasive, if you don't want to answer that then just say so. Even though no other RKBA group besides the NRA has ever been this secretive.

CALGUNS is the ONLY group in California that is doing anything. You guys have been successful more so than some of the naysayers on here would like to think (Gene refers to them as Battered Gun Owners) and California IS much better off than it was 7 years ago when I use to be glad that I lived just on the east side of the Colorado River.

When certain people (not you in particular) saying long gun registration is part of a complex plan on one hand but then donate money on other threads on the other hands.... well that make's me skeptical and perhaps even want some answers. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who thinks that.

Anyone else reading this can see that you are being a jerk Kevin, I've never seen someone on the board of directors of any RKBA group act like a condescending jerk. If you don't know why, then you would have simply not responded, but you defended long gun registration.

Again, the question is... for the 4th time...

How does long gun registration help the cause? If you don't know the answer then why defend Brown on that one.

desertjosh
10-17-2011, 11:22 AM
Things sure are hot in here...

oaklander
10-17-2011, 2:00 PM
So you still don't want to answer the question about long gun registration. I've asked 4 times, and you as CGF board member can't answer that. You ask why I'm on this thread, it's because I am shocked that people on here are defending his signature on the long gun registration bill, that's why.

That's not wanting to argue, it's simply being evasive, if you don't want to answer that then just say so. Even though no other RKBA group besides the NRA has ever been this secretive.

CALGUNS is the ONLY group in California that is doing anything. You guys have been successful more so than some of the naysayers on here would like to think (Gene refers to them as Battered Gun Owners) and California IS much better off than it was 7 years ago when I use to be glad that I lived just on the east side of the Colorado River.

When certain people (not you in particular) saying long gun registration is part of a complex plan on one hand but then donate money on other threads on the other hands.... well that make's me skeptical and perhaps even want some answers. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who thinks that.

Anyone else reading this can see that you are being a jerk Kevin, I've never seen someone on the board of directors of any RKBA group act like a condescending jerk. If you don't know why, then you would have simply not responded, but you defended long gun registration.

Again, the question is... for the 4th time...

How does long gun registration help the cause? If you don't know the answer then why defend Brown on that one.

1) I am not a Board Member

2) My only point is the truth that Brown is not opposition

Yes, I am a jerk. Now go home.

;-)

I do not even follow the legislation and/or the litigation. My role as "Of Counsel" to the Foundation is essentially Ambassador with respect to other groups. Right now, I am doing local work here in Oakland on things that are not even gun-related (but which DO impact our civil rights). I do this all for free, and spend about 2000 hours per year doing unpaid pro bono work for our civil rights movement.

Again, you are simply an angry person. I am trying to help you - but you seem impervious to our overtures. I am nobody, I throw BBQ's, and make phone calls. You seem mad at me for something that an elected official did. When we all try to explain to you that people do things for complex reasons, you still do not understand. I do not know Brown directly. If you want to know why he signed the long gun thing, read the signing letter, or contact his office and ask them. I do not follow legislation, or litigation - I am wrong person to ask. HOWEVER, I do know pretty much every person in the state of any import who is fighting for your rights (amd 99.9 percent of them are ALSO UNPAID).

You have managed to irritate pretty much all of us at this point. Please, change your tone - and we can maybe help you. But if you persist in being rude and confontational and irrational, there is really no reason to give you the time of day.

Understood?


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

gbp
10-17-2011, 2:12 PM
"Listen to me. It makes you feel good. (It will make you feel like a puppy riding a Unicorn.)"
Now thats some funny **** right there
Why do I feel as though I'm riding on the horn?

oaklander
10-17-2011, 2:18 PM
"Listen to me. It makes you feel good. (It will make you feel like a puppy riding a Unicorn.)"
Now thats some funny **** right there
Why do I feel as though I'm riding on the horn?

The force is strong with this one!

;-)

YES, the only way I can even justify doing this work is by keeping it fun for us. I really do enjoy doing this stuff - and I simply do not like working with angry people. . .

Those of us who have fun tend to get more done anyways!


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

OleCuss
10-17-2011, 2:27 PM
.
.
.
You ask why I'm on this thread, it's because I am shocked that people on here are defending his signature on the long gun registration bill, that's why.
.
.
.

Whoa! I guess I missed something big time!

I didn't know anyone was actually defending signing the long gun registration bill. Maybe they have, but I don't recall seeing it.

Personally, I can't forgive any vote or signature (or veto) which violates a civil right - even if it is strategically beneficial.

I also recall at least one CGF board member being unhappy about his signing the long gun registration bill. I also read where reference has been made to Heller II's casting doubt on the constitutionality of long gun registration - which means that California's long gun registration bill may not be able to stand up to a court challenge.

But the part that I've heard/read on registration is that it really isn't all that big a deal since a form of de facto registration already exists (and it does). Thinking that it is not a huge deal doesn't mean one favors the enactment of the bill or that one is at all pleased by JB signing the bill.

Personally, I think that it is a mistake to consider JB to be the great friend of civil rights - but it is clear that he is better than the legislature and an improvement over the previous governor. It is also possible that JB is better than Meg would have been.

The other thing to consider? I've been privy to some political dealings over the years (never been a bigwig by any stretch) but I have had interesting contacts. . . There is a lot of trading of favors and nastiness - and an awful lot of it is never known to the general public.

When I read oaklander's statements I get this very strong impression that if you and I knew what was going on behind the scenes we just might want to write JB a thank you note. Not sure I would (I'm anything but a JB fan) - but what oak and a few others keep hinting at gives me pause. . .

Edit: I should add that California is awfully close to one-party rule. After the next election the conventional political wisdom is that the Republicans will have virtually no effect on any legislation or other part of state government. That suggests that the place in which we should be looking for friends is within the Democrat party (I get a bad taste in my mouth just from typing that). Given that JB is one of only a very few relevant politicians who are better than the average Democrat in the legislature it might be wise to court him instead of alienating him.

I'm not sure that the conventional political wisdom is correct. If I had any faith in the California GOP I'd be betting on significant Republican gains in the legislature in 2012 - but I have no such faith. Since I have no faith in the California GOP it may be better to look for the best of the Democrats and befriend them.

oaklander
10-17-2011, 2:37 PM
Whoa! I guess I missed something big time!

I didn't know anyone was actually defending signing the long gun registration bill. Maybe they have, but I don't recall seeing it.

Personally, I can't forgive any vote or signature (or veto) which violates a civil right - even if it is strategically beneficial.

I also recall at least one CGF board member being unhappy about his signing the long gun registration bill. I also read where reference has been made to Heller II's casting doubt on the constitutionality of long gun registration - which means that California's long gun registration bill may not be able to stand up to a court challenge.

But the part that I've heard/read on registration is that it really isn't all that big a deal since a form of de facto registration already exists (and it does). Thinking that it is not a huge deal doesn't mean one favors the enactment of the bill or that one is at all pleased by JB signing the bill.

Personally, I think that it is a mistake to consider JB to be the great friend of civil rights - but it is clear that he is better than the legislature and an improvement over the previous governor. It is also possible that JB is better than Meg would have been.

The other thing to consider? I've been privy to some political dealings over the years (never been a bigwig by any stretch) but I have had interesting contacts. . . There is a lot of trading of favors and nastiness - and an awful lot of it is never known to the general public.

When I read oaklander's statements I get this very strong impression that if you and I knew what was going on behind the scenes we just might want to write JB a thank you note. Not sure I would (I'm anything but a JB fan) - but what oak and a few others keep hinting at gives me pause. . .

YES!

I simply do not know enough to say anything other than that Brown is not opposition. I am personally a "long gun person" - I love my rifles! So the thing he signed DOES bother me. But I am also privy to communications from our legislative liaisons on certain topics, and they have a generally positive relationship with Brown and his staff.

But yes, I don't recall any of us LIKING THIS!

That is the "listen" part I am getting at. People form snap opinions about people and issues, when the reality is much more complex. For example:

Some folks think that I have a lot of money. I do not.

I spend most of my days doing unpaid work for our civil rights, and I pay ALL my own expenses. Last year, I had at LEAST $5000 in travel and hotel expenses, and another HUGE amount in lost billing revenue. I only make money when I actually WORK for my day job!

I live in East Oakland, and am behind on my rent (as usual).

It kind of hurts my feelings when someone who does not even know me, as a person - starts saying bad things about me and my friends.

1) NONE of the folks who do the grassroots work get paid.

2) WE are on the same winning team.

3) Not everything can be explained on the internet.

4) Some folks need to listen.

;-)


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

creekside
10-17-2011, 2:50 PM
That being said, how does long gun registration help us? Will you answer this question or not.

I am nobody, except a login on this board. (I was a member of Democrats for the 2nd Amendment a long lifetime ago . . . and a member of the Pink Pistols now.)

Long gun registration is a horrible idea that helps no one. JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/), is blunt on this point. Registration of firearms equals confiscation of firearms equals genocide (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart). Full stop. Chart in PDF format (http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf).

The only reason a pro-gun politician would sign such a bill is if he felt assured that it would be overturned.

Let's look at that. According to CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5258192-504383.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody) and also here (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-20001885-504383.html):

"Registration is probably not unconstitutional," says Don Kilmer, an attorney in San Jose, Calif. ... "There's a difference between registration as a permissible regulation and registration as good policy."

...

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA and curator of the libertarian-leaning Volokh.com site, addresses this in an article in the latest UCLA Law Review. It argues that a registration requirement is commonplace among other constitutional rights.

...

"Even though the constitutionality of such a measure is a close call, it is a horrible public policy choice," says Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGuns Foundation. [emphasis added]

So when Jerry Brown signed long gun registration, he did not do so as a friend of gun rights. This is politics, and while Jerry may have done us a few big favors on related matters, we need to recognize the realities of the situation.

If you want an RKBA-friendly government, it's time to start educating and voting for one. If you vote, that's one. If you get your friends to vote, that's 10-20. If you educate people who vote and get their friends to vote, that can translate to hundreds and thousands of votes.

Scaring soccer moms into scaring their friends is just plain stupid.

Your rights: use 'em and/or lose 'em. That's the choice.

rt66paul
10-17-2011, 3:04 PM
We have to remember that this is government in action. Long gun registration is just CYA. Sadly, many of these politicians go along with this because the people that paid for their election campaigns really want them too, and "after all, what harm does it do?"

We all know what harm it does, just look at a couple of other English speaking countries that have had them outlawed. Many of these politicians have no clue about it, they only see gun violence in the news all the time. The news is slanted, either the ammo was FMJ, so that it can go through "bullet proof" vests, or it is that horrible "hollow point", that is made to go in small and take out a big hole on exit. It is sad that people believe this and worse. It is also sad when these people are ready to give up their and others' rights because they actually believe that we are protected.

JB is not this guy. He has been in state and city politics a long time and from a person who has been where he has, it could very well look better and safer for the sheeple not to be armed. After all, he was mayor of a city with a very high crime rate, some had to rub off. We need to keep writing him and show how you feel about firearms. Yes, just like there are antigun nuts around, there are also many gun nuts that no one really wants to live near, because they might snap. This scares people from everywhere. The recent atrocity in Seal Beach just affirms many people's beliefs. We need to show these people that we (the potential CCW holders) are educated and safe operators of firearms and are not half cocked vigilantes waiting for someone (a teenage shoplifter?) to blow away, because you have that vision of law and order.

If there were any CCW holders in that salon, maybe, just maybe, it would have had a much lower injury count.

ja308
10-17-2011, 3:09 PM
Many other states are winning .
They are all republican --every one .
I quit the democratic party because of their anti 2A bias.

That will never happen in Ca.
I need that calgun ring to feel better about what was signed .

Zebra
10-17-2011, 4:17 PM
Attitude check!

We. Are. Winning.

Remember the time when our only option for a semi-auto .223 was a Mini-14? It's not that long ago...

F.
Many other states are winning .
They are all republican --every one .
I quit the democratic party because of their anti 2A bias.

That will never happen in Ca.
I need that calgun ring to feel better about what was signed .

HBrebel
10-17-2011, 4:48 PM
Only in California, the land of fruits and nuts, would a "pro gun" crowd defend Jerry Brown signing anti-gun bills.

in Cali lingo "I know, right?"

Jared1981
10-17-2011, 4:49 PM
OleCuss,

Thank you for shining light on this. I appreciate the answer. That's all I was looking for. It seemed from reading some of the earlier posts that some people were thinking Brown was somehow helping the cause. That is what caused me to dig into this because signing a registration bill does not raise one's grade.

Jared1981
10-17-2011, 5:07 PM
1) I am not a Board Member

2) My only point is the truth that Brown is not opposition

Yes, I am a jerk. Now go home.

;-)

you are simply an angry person. I am trying to help you - but you seem
Understood?


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

You are right, I don't know you, and just like how I am a pixel to you, you are a pixel to me.

I'm not angry at all, just amazed. If I recall you were the one who got bent out of shape because I didn't refer to Governor like a God. Oh the horrors :) I called the emperor a Moonbat...

You were the one who lashed out and then try to hide behind it with geeky star wars talk.

Please speak for yourself and not "us" on the forum. Other people answered the question.

You seem to be the CALGUNS cyber bully, then you want to cry because you are behind on your rent because of all the time you spend on activism.

Anyone can read the thread and see that you were being a Jackass. I have nothing to be angry about. Again, anyone can read the thread history and see for themselves.

The problem with internet forums is the same problem with texting, people automatically assume it to be negative or angry because there are no visual facial expressions present as there is in face to face talk.

I am in here because I care and have a vested interest in what happens in CA. Personally I am fine and do not suffer from the silly laws that hopefully can be repeal one day. I can already carry in CA without jumping through the hurdles you do. I can also possess normal guns you guys call assault weapons. I would like everyone else to be able to as well.

I dont know or care about your financial situation, if others comment on that... That is on them, not me.

And I apologize If don't pass your worthiness test, because I really don't care. Others already answered my question. Now if you will excuse me, I am late for my anger management class LOL.

oaklander
10-17-2011, 5:20 PM
You are right, I don't know you, and just like how I am a pixel to you, you are a pixel to me.

I'm not angry at all, just amazed. If I recall you were the one who got bent out of shape because I didn't refer to Governor like a God. Oh the horrors :) I called the emperor a Moonbat...

You were the one who lashed out and then try to hide behind it with geeky star wars talk.

Please speak for yourself and not "us" on the forum. Other people answered the question.

You seem to be the CALGUNS cyber bully, then you want to cry because you are behind on your rent because of all the time you spend on activism.

Anyone can read the thread and see that you were being a Jackass. I have nothing to be angry about. Again, anyone can read the thread history and see for themselves.

The problem with internet forums is the same problem with texting, people automatically assume it to be negative or angry because there are no visual facial expressions present as there is in face to face talk.

I am in here because I care and have a vested interest in what happens in CA. Personally I am fine and do not suffer from the silly laws that hopefully can be repeal one day. I can already carry in CA without jumping through the hurdles you do. I can also possess normal guns you guys call assault weapons. I would like everyone else to be able to as well.

I dont know or care about your financial situation, if others comment on that... That is on them, not me.

And I apologize If don't pass your worthiness test, because I really don't care. Others already answered my question. Now if you will excuse me, I am late for my anger management class LOL.

You can already carry in CA? Are you law enforcement?

You have a vested interest in our state? What is the interest?

Again, what are you doing here, in this thread, and why are you arguing with us?

ETA: but, I do find you amusing - so I have updated my sig. in your honor. Your new nickname is "Sandwich Boy!"

;-)


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

oaklander
10-17-2011, 6:56 PM
OK, someone I know who I trust and respect pointed out that I was being kind of mean to Sandwich Boy.

Sorry Jared!!!

We are all on the same team here. I do respect the fact that you have a different viewpoint than many of us who are also doing the work, and I was trying to help you see things in a more nuanced light.

I probably also got a little too snippy! Sorry, it is just the way I am - but I will also admit error. I was in error. I will leave my posts up, since I have no reason to remove them. Just please realize that we are all people here.

:)

Jared1981
10-17-2011, 7:04 PM
You can already carry in CA? Are you law enforcement?

You have a vested interest in our state? What is the interest?

Again, what are you doing here, in this thread, and why are you arguing with us?

ETA: but, I do find you amusing - so I have updated my sig. in your honor. Your new nickname is "Sandwich Boy!"

;-)


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

I've already answered enough of your questions. The only person who I'm "arguing" with is you. Everyone else here has engaged in dialogue. I donate a little bit to gun groups every few months or so (nothing major) I think I'll put a little in Comm2a's donation box this time, I guess it's a little home team spirit.

Do as you will with your signature box. It is sad that a board of director acts like this. Gene and Brandon make excellent spokespeople for CALGUNS. Perhaps that is why they use their names on this site, and you do not.

If you wish to complain about barely making ends meet, perhaps a little less time on CALGUNS (10,000+ posts) and a little less time crusading and you may be able to pick up some work.

Sandwich boy is kind of funny, even though i'm probably in much better shape than you... Kevin.

Stonewalker
10-17-2011, 7:15 PM
Kevin, I haven't met you yet in meat-space, but you seem like a really stand-up guy. One thing I really appreciate about you is how you always seem to wind up friends with the people here on CGN that you fight with. Even when somebody has pissed you off you usually bring something good out of the argument a day or two later. One thing's for sure, you are proof that we are a grassroots organization! This is good! CGF couldn't pull the wool over anybody's eyes because of people like you and Andrew Mendez, and to a lesser extent Brandon Combs :chris: That's in order of who makes up the most awesome cusses by the way.

One more awesome thing about CGF, clearly shoring up the 2nd amendment is "the organization's" goal, but all the players have a pretty damned good understanding of and passion for the Bill of Rights at large. Of course, you'd never know that if you hung out in off-topic!

Anyways, Jared you seem to have some experience around the RKBA realm, and I'm interested in what you have to say and offer. More RKBA workers from other states is good thing.

Jared1981
10-17-2011, 7:56 PM
Kevin, I haven't met you yet in meat-space, but you seem like a really stand-up guy. One thing I really appreciate about you is how you always seem to wind up friends with the people here on CGN that you fight with. Even when somebody has pissed you off you usually bring something good out of the argument a day or two later. One thing's for sure, you are proof that we are a grassroots organization! This is good! CGF couldn't pull the wool over anybody's eyes because of people like you and Andrew Mendez, and to a lesser extent Brenden Combs :chris: That's in order of who makes up the most awesome cusses by the way.

One more awesome thing about CGF, clearly shoring up the 2nd amendment is "the organization's" goal, but all the players have a pretty damned good understanding of and passion for the Bill of Rights at large. Of course, you'd never know that if you hung out in off-topic!

Anyways, Jared you seem to have some experience around the RKBA realm, and I'm interested in what you have to say and offer. More RKBA workers from other states is good thing.

I completely agree. CALGUNS is having a big impact and it's great, because for 20+ years, CA was an anti-gun iron clad freight train that seemed to be unstoppable.

Zebra
10-17-2011, 8:34 PM
Great – warming up to the idea that there actually is progress.

Good.

Now just get out of the old ruts of name calling & stereotyping and we can go places.

Together.

Frank

I completely agree. CALGUNS is having a big impact and it's great, because for 20+ years, CA was an anti-gun iron clad freight train that seemed to be unstoppable.

oaklander
10-17-2011, 9:10 PM
Yes, actually some of my best friends are people who I used to argue with all the time!!!!

:)

Part of it is because I will admit my mistakes - and part of it is because I have a crappy memory!!!!

Yes - if Jared wants to help us here - we can help him do that.

With respect to who is the nicest of the CGN people - that would be me, actually. My reputation is that I am the one who tries to get people to not argue. BUT - sometimes I get caught up in arguing too!!!!!

I haven't really been reading Jared's posts - but I think he is calming down a little bit? When he does - he can contact me, and I can put him in touch with the people who can help him, if he wants to help out here in CA.

My personal cell phone is 415.843.1776 - I do not post my name on this forum because it confuses our clients at my day job when they do a google search for their attorney!!!! But I am SO not anonymous. In fact, I am willing to personally meet with anyone who has concerns or questions about what we all do - and there are few people who make that promise.

I also regularly invite anyone who is interested in joining our fight - TO MY HOUSE!

Our last BBQ lasted three days!!!

Stay-tuned for the next one!

WE ARE ONE TEAM - EVEN WHEN WE ARGUE!!!!!

oaklander
10-17-2011, 9:23 PM
I completely agree. CALGUNS is having a big impact and it's great, because for 20+ years, CA was an anti-gun iron clad freight train that seemed to be unstoppable.

Correct, please review this site to see how everything fits together. It is extremely important to realize the difference between CGF and CGN.

http://www.gunrightsarecivilrights.org/

The way things work in CA is not obvious at first. It is not a secret, it's just more complicated than it appears. Please also feel free to call my direct cell phone number that I posted above, should you have any questions about things and/or if there is something that you would like to get involved in. We literally have 1000 things to do - and I am usually pretty good about pointing folks in the right direction.

It is good that you know Gray. He is a good person, and was at the Murphys Retreat. My friend Brandon helped make it possible for Gray to be there.

Please remember that we are all friends first, and advocates second. We simply can't do this type of hard work without being friends. I am usually good at making friends, but in your case, I must have been off my game. I am worrying about money right now - and I am poor because I don't do enough billable hours. Today, I spent most of the day doing stuff related to my desire to reduce violent crime in Oakland.

ALSO - one thing I tell people is that only about 1 percent of what happens with respect to our civil rights work actually is even talked about online. So, if you get involved, you will start to notice that much goes on behind the scenes. We are not stupid, and we realize that our opposition reads this forum. In fact, sometimes things are posted for the benefit of the opposition.

kenblacksmith
10-17-2011, 9:32 PM
Let's face it, Those gun owners that voted for Brown are no more happy about this than us Conservatives, Please be graceful and allow a man time to realize his position is untenable, you need not point it out, Brown has shown his true colors. Anyone can see that, why rub it in.

Zebra
10-17-2011, 9:46 PM
Let's face it, Those gun owners that voted for Brown are no more happy about this than us Conservatives, Please be graceful and allow a man time to realize his position is untenable, you need not point it out, Brown has shown his true colors. Anyone can see that, why rub it in.
Again – In case you missed some shades of the 'true colors:'
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>

CAL-ERT 10/10/11 --- 00:01 A.M.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LEGISLATIVE ALERT

This information is accurate at the time this CAL-ERT was written and originally distributed. The NRA Members' Councils of California will keep you informed as the legislative, regulatory, and/or litigation situation changes in California.

GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS NRA/CRPA SPONSORED CCW REFORM LEGISLATION!

When Senate Bill 610 goes into effect, the first of next year, it will bring the long-awaited statewide consistency in the manner of how CCW permits are processed by all issuing agencies. SB610 will require agencies to determine if an applicant has initial "Good Cause" to be issued a permit BEFORE the applicant is required to fulfill the requirements in training, classes, background checks and pay the sometimes extensive fees required to obtain a permit. SB610 will also specify that issuing agencies CANNOT require CCW applicants to obtain "Liability Insurance" as a condition for being issued a CCW permit.

In California's current political climate, reforms such as SB610 require a tremendous amount of effort and coordination by all of those involved. The NRA and CRPA have shown to be quite effective in their efforts to pass this legislation that both organizations sponsored. Their work to protect the Second Amendment freedoms of their members is a perfect example of how we all can be successful if we remain vigilant.

When the Governor signed Senate Bill 610, he presented NRA's lobbyist with a copy of the signed bill. Clearly, Governor Brown appreciates NRA-ILA California State Liaison Ed Worley.

http://www.calnra.com/calerts/SB610.jpg

ccmc
10-18-2011, 6:41 AM
No dog in this hunt, but this is what the NRA weekly email update dated 10/14says in the states roundup section about California:

Quote

California: Governor Jerry Brown Signs Three Anti-Gun Bills Into Law
If they did not already know, California gun owners and sportsmen found out exactly where Governor Jerry Brown stands on the Second Amendment. Governor Brown mad his opposition to this fundamental right, protected by the Second Amendment, clear when he recently signed into law three anti-gun bills. He did veto a fourth anti-gun bill, but only because there is a pending lawsuit.

Unquote

My personal opinion? Jerry Brown is a fairly straight talker who generally means what he says. I respect that in a politician even though I may disagree with his position.

kenblacksmith
10-18-2011, 7:14 AM
CCMC, please think of everyone else next time you vote. You may be the reason we all lose our rights in this state. (well meaning Dem's).

ccmc
10-18-2011, 9:10 AM
CCMC, please think of everyone else next time you vote. You may be the reason we all lose our rights in this state. (well meaning Dem's).

My post was clear as mud? Sorry about that. Let me be more clear. I don't necessarily vote for republicans, but I always vote against democrats. Besides being anti 2A they are the architects of institutional racism, both on a historical de jure and a contemporary de facto basis. I can still respect individual democrat politicians like Brown for the reasons I mentioned, but he would never get my vote.

BTW I thought I was pretty clear when I said I don't have a personal dog in this hunt. I don't live in CA, and never have. Whatever rights you all lose in CA has nothing to do with my vote. I'm here because this is a good 2A forum, and I'm learning a lot here.

I'll say one more thing. I don't buy that CA politics are any more complex than other places. If anything, the fact that CA is a virtual one party state probably makes them less complex.

bwiese
10-18-2011, 9:24 AM
I'll say one more thing. I don't buy that CA politics are any more complex than other places. If anything, the fact that CA is a virtual one party state probably makes them less complex.

The CA Dem party is really two parties - the far far left and greenies/SEIU, and more mainstream people and older tradtional unions (steamfitters, IBEW, etc.)

There is often more division between these two sides than between the centrist Dems and Reeps in CA.

(For those that think CA Reeps 'need to be more conservative', um - no. That's how you LOSE elections in CA - the CA Reep party shows us repeated examples of that.)

Bhobbs
10-18-2011, 9:49 AM
The CA Dem party is really two parties - the far far left and greenies/SEIU, and more mainstream people and older tradtional unions (steamfitters, IBEW, etc.)

There is often more division between these two sides than between the centrist Dems and Reeps in CA.

(For those that think CA Reeps 'need to be more conservative', um - no. That's how you LOSE elections in CA - the CA Reep party shows us repeated examples of that.)

So the CA Reeps need to be more liberal? Like Arnold was when he sighned the gun bans?

Why not just elect liberal Dems?

CA Reeps need to stay away from personal rights like same sex marriage if they want to get elected. If they focus on getting the budget balanced they might have a chance, even it if is slim.

Super Spy
10-18-2011, 9:57 AM
Only in California, the land of fruits and nuts, would a "pro gun" crowd defend Jerry Brown signing anti-gun bills.

Not sure who is right or wrong, at least this is funny.....

ccmc
10-18-2011, 10:02 AM
Not sure who is right or wrong, at least this is funny.....

It is funny. Just wish he'd left out the fruit and nuts part. I don't like disparaging any state's residents (as for offense to actual fruits and nuts, well I won't go there :) ). I guess since the guy who posted it lives in CA it's OK.

curtisfong
10-18-2011, 10:18 AM
CA Reeps need to stay away from personal rights like same sex marriage if they want to get elected.

Avoiding the topic entirely might work. Maybe.

Jared1981
10-18-2011, 10:32 AM
!

I haven't really been reading Jared's posts - but I think he is calming down a little bit? When he does - he can contact me, and I can put him in touch with the people who can help him, if he wants to help out here in CA.



It seemed obvious that you were not reading my posts.

I do sincerely appreciate your willingness to help and get others involved and I honestly may take you up on that offer. I am just one person and I am no one special; however, candidly, I'm a bit turned off, between the childish schoolyard nonsense on this thread and the GPAL stuff (GPAL almost ruined a civil rights lawsuit against an abusive cop in Michigan for a bad open carry encounter that I contributed to) and we almost couldn't go forward with the suit due to GPAL.

Although I may get involved even if it's in some tiny role at the very least. Not sure though.

I may very well end up in California, that's why I care. Carrying is not an issue because I can already carry anywhere in the U.S. (FedLEO); however, I would like everyone else and my loved ones to be able to carry in California as well.

I could also leave any "assault weapons" and a supressor in New England if I do end up in CA until (hopefully) Roberti-Roos is struck from the Penal Code.

Keep in mind that California is not all that anti-gun (the legislators definitely are). California has a lot of wealthy and anti-rights people residing in the state. If the climate was as bad as people say it is, then there would be statewide ballot initiatives to restrict RKBA; however, that has not happened like it did in Maryland in 1988.

So please keep this in mind. Roberti-Roos and all other anti gun stuff in CA was never passed by the ballot. By no means am I saying the population is pro-gun, but I think the concept of having a handgun in the home for protection in CA is a fairly popular position as it is in almost all of the United States except for a few isolated cities and other elitist areas.

Bhobbs
10-18-2011, 11:00 AM
Avoiding the topic entirely might work. Maybe.

That's why I said slim chance. The problem is Californian's don't want financial responsibility. They want gov hand outs.

oaklander
10-18-2011, 2:51 PM
Yes - we are in agreement on the below. I will have to start reading posts better!!!

:D

Last few days were kind of personally hard. This Oakland stuff I am doing (which is not directly related to gun rights) is very stressful. I was just letting it get to me.

SO - I spent the whole morning doing some marketing work for my day job -and that was kind of calming. I am off to a city council meeting later - I am really trying to get involved here - and maybe learn from direct experience how all this stuff happens.

I really do listen to people when I talk to them - but I guess I also need to read more too!!!

It seemed obvious that you were not reading my posts.

I do sincerely appreciate your willingness to help and get others involved and I honestly may take you up on that offer. I am just one person and I am no one special; however, candidly, I'm a bit turned off, between the childish schoolyard nonsense on this thread and the GPAL stuff (GPAL almost ruined a civil rights lawsuit against an abusive cop in Michigan for a bad open carry encounter that I contributed to) and we almost couldn't go forward with the suit due to GPAL.

Although I may get involved even if it's in some tiny role at the very least. Not sure though.

I may very well end up in California, that's why I care. Carrying is not an issue because I can already carry anywhere in the U.S. (FedLEO); however, I would like everyone else and my loved ones to be able to carry in California as well.

I could also leave any "assault weapons" and a supressor in New England if I do end up in CA until (hopefully) Roberti-Roos is struck from the Penal Code.

Keep in mind that California is not all that anti-gun (the legislators definitely are). California has a lot of wealthy and anti-rights people residing in the state. If the climate was as bad as people say it is, then there would be statewide ballot initiatives to restrict RKBA; however, that has not happened like it did in Maryland in 1988.

So please keep this in mind. Roberti-Roos and all other anti gun stuff in CA was never passed by the ballot. By no means am I saying the population is pro-gun, but I think the concept of having a handgun in the home for protection in CA is a fairly popular position as it is in almost all of the United States except for a few isolated cities and other elitist areas.