PDA

View Full Version : Brown explains the opposites of his vetos and signatures


johnny_22
10-11-2011, 2:18 PM
When asked why he signed both AB 144 and SB 610:

“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin—coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/10/11/gov-brown-explains-logic-of-his-11th-hour-bill-signings-vetoes/

Why a Jesuit-trained politician will keep you guessing.

curtisfong
10-11-2011, 2:24 PM
He knows AB144 has no real meaning in CA.

He signed two pointless anti-gun bills, vetoed a potentially disasterous anti-gun bill, and signed a good pro-gun bill.

That isn't really coincidentia oppositorum; thats being smart.

edwardm
10-11-2011, 2:27 PM
When asked why he signed both AB 144 and SB 610:

“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin—coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/10/11/gov-brown-explains-logic-of-his-11th-hour-bill-signings-vetoes/

Why a Jesuit-trained politician will keep you guessing.

If that isn't a smoking gun, I don't know what is.

CHS
10-11-2011, 4:27 PM
That isn't really coincidentia oppositorum; thats being smart.

Being smart would have been to veto all four.

But smart and politics don't mix.

loose_electron
10-11-2011, 4:29 PM
Being smart from a political perspective
means staying in the muddled middle.

2 weeks to a shall issue state!

:)

Shady
10-11-2011, 4:40 PM
maybe he knows 144 may help us become shall issue

stix213
10-11-2011, 5:53 PM
"Higher unity" as in shall issue LTC. I don't see any other meaning to that phrasing, considering he knows damn well the various potential implications of AB144

SanPedroShooter
10-11-2011, 6:00 PM
Ughhh.. what does it all mean....? Is he saying, "I signed the UOC ban and cleaned up the LTC system to get guns out of peoples faces and inside their waistbands"...?

I would think the Shall issue handwriting is on the wall, one way or another...

Can we get a dem to run a shall issue bill next year? Would Brown sign it? I have a feeling that the "public safety" unions and COP orgs would be dead set against it.

stix213
10-11-2011, 6:02 PM
Ughhh.. what does it all mean....? Is he saying, "I signed the UOC ban and cleaned up the LTC system to get guns out of peoples faces and inside their waistbands"...?

I would think the Shall issue handwriting is on the wall, one way or another...

Can we get a dem to run a shall issue bill next year? Would Brown sign it?

This is certainly their chance to have it done "their way" as opposed to how the courts tell them it has to be. If they were smart, this is exactly what they would do.

SanPedroShooter
10-11-2011, 6:11 PM
Right? I think we can pretty much forget about R gun bills as R's lose more and more influence in Sac. I just see massive static from police unions and lib sherrifs (whose opinions are given a lot of weight) Legislative clean up is good (and easier) its the way all the other 40 some odd states have done it, but I think the courts are going to have to show the way and set a baseline for statist/facist states like California.

Kosuki
10-11-2011, 6:17 PM
If that isn't a smoking gun, I don't know what is.
I cant see the smoke yet but I can smell it burning ^^

Ubermcoupe
10-11-2011, 7:39 PM
If that isn't a smoking gun, I don't know what is.

I hope so.

CalBear
10-11-2011, 8:14 PM
I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. My suspicion on this apparent contradiction is that JB ended up listening to the CLEOs and their complaints about open carriers and the LEO resources that are used, while he probably saw SB 610 as fair and just. Not sure if I should read into this more and start guessing, like others have, that he's secretly working toward shall issue LTC or something.

tabrisnet
10-11-2011, 8:17 PM
Ughhh.. what does it all mean....? Is he saying, "I signed the UOC ban and cleaned up the LTC system to get guns out of peoples faces and inside their waistbands"...?

I would think the Shall issue handwriting is on the wall, one way or another...

Can we get a dem to run a shall issue bill next year? Would Brown sign it? I have a feeling that the "public safety" unions and COP orgs would be dead set against it.

To quote Gene, the game is Chess, not Checkers.

Do note another bill he vetoed: SB914 - to ban warrantless police seizures of cell phones. He said that the courts are better suited to the question. He's right.

If the legislature passes a law about this, it moots any possible lawsuits. Binding precedent is much harder to revert than legislation. Similar follows for AB144 & Shall-Issue. He said the same thing about SB427: Ammo Registration. Let the courts settle the issue.

Darklyte27
10-11-2011, 8:18 PM
It comes down to ill believe it when I see it? LTC!

ccmc
10-12-2011, 6:27 AM
Right? I think we can pretty much forget about R gun bills as R's lose more and more influence in Sac. I just see massive static from police unions and lib sherrifs (whose opinions are given a lot of weight) Legislative clean up is good (and easier) its the way all the other 40 some odd states have done it, but I think the courts are going to have to show the way and set a baseline for statist/facist states like California.

You're not saying democrats are fascists, are you :)

Mulay El Raisuli
10-12-2011, 6:38 AM
Being smart would have been to veto all four.

But smart and politics don't mix.


I don't know. He's kept his base happy (by signing the meaningless) & advanced CCW. Maybe curtisfong is right.


The Raisuli

chuckdc
10-12-2011, 11:54 AM
You're not saying democrats are fascists, are you :)

Well, if the armbands fit.... at least for some of them (DeLeon, et al.)

Untamed1972
10-12-2011, 11:59 AM
Right? I think we can pretty much forget about R gun bills as R's lose more and more influence in Sac. I just see massive static from police unions and lib sherrifs (whose opinions are given a lot of weight) Legislative clean up is good (and easier) its the way all the other 40 some odd states have done it, but I think the courts are going to have to show the way and set a baseline for statist/facist states like California.

what I dont get is if you look at those county maps of CA, far more of the sheriffs are pro-LTC then those that aren't, so why is the Sheriff's assoc. is always coming out for anti-gun bills? Why are all those pro-2A sheriffs allowing the small number of anti-sheriffs to run the show and speak for them?

831Shooter
10-12-2011, 12:39 PM
IMHO, I don't think JB is a total gun grabber, but he also certainly doesn't have some secret pro-2A agenda.

I think his decision was based on exactly what he said.. He consulted with "police chiefs, etc."

He was probably told "Jerry, this Open Carry thing is bad for all of us. It's draining our resources, etc. The public really doesn't need to have Open Carry. If they feel they need a gun for self defense they should just apply for a LTC"

Seemed reasonable to JB, except for the fact that those chiefs he consulted didn't mention that the majority of the population in CA live in counties where actually getting approved for that LTC is essentially not possible.

So brown passed AB144 and signed SB610. Unfortunately SB610 is not really doing a whole lot for us. Until you can simply write "self defense" for good cause and get a license we are exactly where we have always been..

Just my .02

831S

stix213
10-12-2011, 12:50 PM
IMHO, I don't think JB is a total gun grabber, but he also certainly doesn't have some secret pro-2A agenda.

I think his decision was based on exactly what he said.. He consulted with "police chiefs, etc."

He was probably told "Jerry, this Open Carry thing is bad for all of us. It's draining our resources, etc. The public really doesn't need to have Open Carry. If they feel they need a gun for self defense they should just apply for a LTC"

Seemed reasonable to JB, except for the fact that those chiefs he consulted didn't mention that the majority of the population in CA live in counties where actually getting approved for that LTC is essentially not possible.

So brown passed AB144 and signed SB610. Unfortunately SB610 is not really doing a whole lot for us. Until you can simply write "self defense" for good cause and get a license we are exactly where we have always been..

Just my .02

831S

In that context, what was JB referring to when he said "It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity."???

831Shooter
10-12-2011, 1:59 PM
In that context, what was JB referring to when he said "It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity."???

I think JB was not too informed about the 2A bills presented to him. Why do I think that? Because if he had been he would not have needed to "listen to the California police chiefs"..

Those same CA police chiefs that say things like "Apply for a LTC if you feel the need to carry a firearm".. Likely JB got the same statement as I already posted. So he went with the opinion of the police chiefs that open carry was bad and civilians should apply for LTC instead". Hence he passed 144 and 610. Now, while 610 may be somewhat helpful, NOTHING has changed regarding the fact that good cause is determined by the sheriffs. There are 58 of them and many find there is NO good cause for civilians.

JB, as any governor, has a million things on his plate. Not the least of 800+ new bills he had to go through. He simply can't be expected to be completely up to date on every issue.

I do believe he heard the " no open carry, LTC better" argument from the police chiefs that he consulted. I do believe he thought that sounded like a reasonable thing, which is why he signed both bills.

I do NOT believe that he is so informed about the 2A issues and is secretly very pro 2A that he actually had a plan and had the foresight to pass the UOC ban knowing it will somehow lead to "virtual shall issue"..

831S

SilverBulletZ06
10-12-2011, 2:00 PM
WTH? Having to go to the dubious 9th circuit to fight these bills is NOT a good thing.

Briancnelson
10-12-2011, 2:06 PM
To quote Gene, the game is Chess, not Checkers.

Do note another bill he vetoed: SB914 - to ban warrantless police seizures of cell phones. He said that the courts are better suited to the question. He's right.

If the legislature passes a law about this, it moots any possible lawsuits. Binding precedent is much harder to revert than legislation. Similar follows for AB144 & Shall-Issue. He said the same thing about SB427: Ammo Registration. Let the courts settle the issue.

The binding precedent is all bad, if you like civil rights, and the Supremes refused to hear the case on appeal from the California Supreme Court. So there's not going to be any reversal. Not anytime soon.

So, what he's really saying is "I want warrantless searches of phones, and so I need to veto this positive civil rights legislation, and pretend I'm bowing to the will of the court, which makes no sense since it's an unelected body that is only supposed to be reviewing laws, not making them."

He liked the outcome he had, and he had political cover in the court, so he vetoed it. Simple.

And 610 is political cover as well, to assuage anger over the UOC ban and the registration law. He KNOWS it will take lawsuits and decades, if at all, before the fruit of that would ever result in CCW's in counties with anti-gun sheriffs, or shall issue in California. So he signs this to toss us a bone, and hopes it will be enough to keep us confused, while he hands his anti 2A supporters a couple of major, IMMEDIATE victories.

This pattern will repeat itself for the next few years, mark my words.

People keep repeating the old saw about Chess and Checkers. Problem is, we're playing Chess, he's playing 3 card monty, and he just took us for a wad.

gunsmith
10-12-2011, 2:12 PM
I have been watching the LTC cause for a long time now, Jerry Brown did us all a favor.
UOC is useless for real self defense.

Where I lived in SF you couldn't carry anywhere without a GFSZ & an unloaded gun is a paper weight.

The bill gives us the legal argument for concealed carry that we needed.

CapS
10-12-2011, 2:17 PM
WTH? Having to go to the dubious 9th circuit to fight these bills is NOT a good thing.

It could be a very Good Thing© if the 9th is the tollgate on the road to the SCOTUS.
Could be a good example of "chess, not checkers."

SilverBulletZ06
10-12-2011, 2:50 PM
It could be a very Good Thing© if the 9th is the tollgate on the road to the SCOTUS.
Could be a good example of "chess, not checkers."

Why wait. If the courts refused Williams then possibly reject Mascidianro we get screwed. If they accept and confirm Mas. we get it either way. Its not chess if the game ends before you get to play.

jdberger
10-12-2011, 2:56 PM
Why wait. If the courts refused Williams then possibly reject Mascidianro we get screwed. If they accept and confirm Mas. we get it either way. Its not chess if the game ends before you get to play.

How often do you checkmate using only one piece? :D

newbee1111
10-12-2011, 3:13 PM
I really doubt there is some pro-2A master plan behind the approvals / vetos. I think AB144 was signed was because it was just too much of a political hot potato to veto. Brown didn't want to hear about he personally let scary people carry handguns at the local super market. That bad thing is that with enough long gun open carry drama next years bill to ban open carry of long guns will get the same treatment.

The ammo ban was vetoed because he knows its unconstitutional BS. He just fought this battle a few months ago and he really doesn't care enough about it to fight it again.

I think he approved the LTC clean up bill because having different standards by county just screams lawsuits under the equal protection act. While he is fine with granting the sheriffs some discretion he knows that when they add BS provisions then its just going to involve the state in another lawsuit. Another headache he doesn't need.

I'm disappointed in him vetoing the cell phone search bill, his excuse is a total BS cop out. Its completely within the legislature's rights to outlaw an abusive search like that. The court would only need to step in to preserve rights, not take them away.

So to me he looks neither overtly pro or anti 2A. Thats probably as good as you are going to get as a governor here.

stix213
10-12-2011, 4:52 PM
For the people that don't agree that JB was referring to shall issue LTC in this quote:

It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.

I still would like an explanation of exactly what he was referring to then. There are a lot of people saying they don't think he is pro-2A, or giving explanations of why they think he did this or that, but no one is looking at what he exactly said.

I don't see any other explanation other than shall issue LTC being the "higher unity" between AB144 and the CCW clean up bill. If that is not the "unity" being referred to, what exactly was he referring to? (not asking for an opinion on why he signed this or that, asking for an opinion on what the specific "unity" he is talking about in this one sentence is if it has nothing to do with shall issue LTC)

vantec08
10-12-2011, 5:16 PM
That term sounds like a treatment for constipation.

newbee1111
10-12-2011, 6:31 PM
For the people that don't agree that JB was referring to shall issue LTC in this quote:



I still would like an explanation of exactly what he was referring to then. There are a lot of people saying they don't think he is pro-2A, or giving explanations of why they think he did this or that, but no one is looking at what he exactly said.

I don't see any other explanation other than shall issue LTC being the "higher unity" between AB144 and the CCW clean up bill. If that is not the "unity" being referred to, what exactly was he referring to? (not asking for an opinion on why he signed this or that, asking for an opinion on what the specific "unity" he is talking about in this one sentence is if it has nothing to do with shall issue LTC)

To me it sounds like master level political BS that he is using to explain to both sides why they didn't get what they wanted. I don't think there is an deeper meaning then that. .

hawk1
10-12-2011, 6:37 PM
He knows AB144 has no real meaning in CA.

He signed two pointless anti-gun bills, vetoed a potentially disasterous anti-gun bill, and signed a good pro-gun bill.

That isn't really coincidentia oppositorum; thats being smart.

No more kool aid for you!..:facepalm:

stix213
10-12-2011, 6:55 PM
To me it sounds like master level political BS that he is using to explain to both sides why they didn't get what they wanted. I don't think there is an deeper meaning then that. .

So the "higher unity' he refers to is equally screwing over all his supporters? :confused:

Gray Peterson
10-12-2011, 7:01 PM
Why wait. If the courts refused Williams then possibly reject Mascidianro we get screwed. If they accept and confirm Mas. we get it either way. Its not chess if the game ends before you get to play.

You realize that Peterson in the 10th Circuit as well as other civil court cases is on a trajectory to the high court, right?

BHP FAN
10-12-2011, 7:04 PM
I just have to point out to everybody that heaped dung on my shoulders for voting for ''that RHINO Whitman'' that I was right. Fat lot of good it does me, in the State I was born in. I wish the rest of you would move back where you come from.

Window_Seat
10-12-2011, 7:10 PM
Being smart from a political perspective
means staying in the muddled middle.

2 weeks to a shall issue state!

:)

Where you moving to? :laugh:

Ughhh.. what does it all mean....? Is he saying, "I signed the UOC ban and cleaned up the LTC system to get guns out of peoples faces and inside their waistbands"...?

I would think the Shall issue handwriting is on the wall, one way or another...

Can we get a dem to run a shall issue bill next year? Would Brown sign it? I have a feeling that the "public safety" unions and COP orgs would be dead set against it.

http://sd25.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd25.senate.ca.gov/files/sd25_initial_logo.jpg (http://sd25.senate.ca.gov/)

Erik.

831Shooter
10-12-2011, 7:12 PM
For the people that don't agree that JB was referring to shall issue LTC in this quote:



I still would like an explanation of exactly what he was referring to then. There are a lot of people saying they don't think he is pro-2A, or giving explanations of why they think he did this or that, but no one is looking at what he exactly said.

I don't see any other explanation other than shall issue LTC being the "higher unity" between AB144 and the CCW clean up bill. If that is not the "unity" being referred to, what exactly was he referring to? (not asking for an opinion on why he signed this or that, asking for an opinion on what the specific "unity" he is talking about in this one sentence is if it has nothing to do with shall issue LTC)

Strike outs in quote above by me..

I thought I had answered in my last reply to you, but now that I read it again it was not clear. Part of what I said was:

I do believe he heard the " no open carry, LTC better" argument from the police chiefs that he consulted. I do believe he thought that sounded like a reasonable thing, which is why he signed both bills.

I think he did not entirely know the full spectrum of the bills. Not necessarily his fault. It would be impossible to know the details in all the legalize in 800+ bills. I think he did what he said and got his advice from the police chiefs. They told him Open Carry was bad and people should apply for their LTC. I think he took that advise and passed both bills.

I DO think he was referring to LTC. I do NOT think he was referring to "shall issue" LTC. He signed 610 thinking it sounded fair (and to appease gun owners after signing 144 and others). I in NO WAY think he has any thought in his head that his doing so is somehow going to help the entire state of CA become a state where essentially ANY person not prohibited from owning a firearm would be given a LTC (ie. shall issue). Not in a million years. 610 doesn't do much in regards to getting is to shall issue. As long as that good cause is there and under the discretion of each sheriff it's simply a dream.

There should not even be a good cause needed. Even if they will simply accept, "self defense" as the good cause. I just sent in my Florida and Arizona applications. Absolutely beautiful. NOTHING in there asking my reason for wanting/needing a LTC.

JB does not think that his vetoes and passes just set up the state for shall issue.. IMHO.

thrasherfox
10-12-2011, 7:18 PM
After reading the article I think maybe he is trying to pave the way for a shall issue state.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. In San Diego CCW was struck down because open carry was allowed. Now that open carry is illegal CCW is the only way we can exercise our right.

The ruling in San Diego should be able to be challenged now. If the judge tries to come up with some other excuse the judge will apear to just be anti 2A and grasping for straws.

I dont like the long gun registration however.

CHS
10-13-2011, 11:33 AM
I wish the rest of you would move back where you come from.

Ah yes, that will fix the problem. Don't ever let anyone move out of the state they were born in order to make a better life for themselves.

BHP FAN
10-13-2011, 2:58 PM
''Ah yes, that will fix the problem. Don't ever let anyone move out of the state they were born in order to make a better life for themselves...''
sorry, I was haveing an attack of curmudgeliness.

curtisfong
10-13-2011, 3:33 PM
My biggest problem with Brown is his statement that he listens to CLEO when it comes to legislative advice.

http://ackelandassociates.com/cash-transactions-banned-by-louisiana/

Big f'ing mistake.

Never. Ever. EVER listen to CLEO when making legislative decisions.

radioman
10-13-2011, 3:44 PM
In other words Brown is saying, the poop does not fall far from the bull.

warkaj
10-13-2011, 3:53 PM
Brown doesn't want any of us to have guns... he's a joke. The base point is this "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".... period. END OF STATEMENT AND ARGUMENT. There is no arguing that fact, it is a Constitutional RIGHT that California is and any state that makes a gun law or regulation directly tramples on. Gun laws and restrictions infringe on YOUR right to keep and bear arms... therefore they are unconstitutional and illegal.
I say take all these gun laws to the Supreme Court and let them smack them all down, they are unconstitutional at their core.

J.D.Allen
10-13-2011, 4:07 PM
You realize that Peterson in the 10th Circuit as well as other civil court cases is on a trajectory to the high court, right?

Oh Yeah? does that case involve anyone we know? ;)

Gray Peterson
10-13-2011, 4:18 PM
Brown doesn't want any of us to have guns... he's a joke. The base point is this "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".... period. END OF STATEMENT AND ARGUMENT. There is no arguing that fact, it is a Constitutional RIGHT that California is and any state that makes a gun law or regulation directly tramples on. Gun laws and restrictions infringe on YOUR right to keep and bear arms... therefore they are unconstitutional and illegal.
I say take all these gun laws to the Supreme Court and let them smack them all down, they are unconstitutional at their core.

African Americans did not have their right to marry outside of their race recognized until 13 years after brown v board of education.

Please read up on Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall.

curtisfong
10-13-2011, 4:25 PM
it is a Constitutional RIGHT that California is and any state that makes a gun law or regulation directly tramples on.

Well. Unless you are a states rights advocate and don't particularly think that incorporation of the Bill of Rights is a good thing.

Rocket Man
10-13-2011, 10:49 PM
“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin—coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”



I know what this means;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLdZ-cm-n-g

:facepalm:


“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites man. I can even say it in Latin—coincidentia oppositorum man. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity bio digital jazz man.” Jerry Moonbeam Brown... man.

curtisfong
10-13-2011, 11:01 PM
Moonbeam

Yea, crazy. What was he thinking? Communications satellites? Nutty!

Lulfas
10-14-2011, 8:44 AM
Yea, crazy. What was he thinking? Communications satellites? Nutty!

I love that people still call him Moonbeam, when it was probably the smartest thing he ever did.