PDA

View Full Version : CA Second Apellate, People v Gabriel: 'assault weapons are immoral'


Librarian
02-11-2012, 2:19 PM
Oi.

People v SOLOMON ABYABWI GABRIEL, B228244
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA048498)

Opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B228244.PDF
(Fixed link - thanks, blakdawg! I really did download it...)

Neither defendant nor respondent has found authority holding that possession of an assault weapon is a crime of moral turpitude, and our own research has revealed none.

...

Subject to the trial court‟s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, the California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (f), “authorizes the use of any felony conviction which necessarily involves moral turpitude, even if the immoral trait is one other than dishonesty. On the other hand, subdivision (d), as well as due process, forbids the use of convictions of felonies which do not necessarily involve moral turpitude.” (People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 306 (Castro).) Thus a “prior conviction should only be admissible for impeachment if the least adjudicated elements of the conviction necessarily involve moral turpitude.” (Id. at p. 317.) Crimes involve moral turpitude when they reveal dishonesty, a “„general readiness to do evil,‟” “„bad character,‟” or “moral depravity.” (Id. at pp. 306, 314.) Such crimes involve an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to others or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people. (People v. Brooks (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 669, 671.)

...

Defendant‟s conviction of this charge required, at the least, that he should have known the weapon possessed the characteristics that made it particularly dangerous to human life. (§ 12280, subd. (b); see In re Jorge M., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 885.) We thus conclude that under Castro’s least adjudicated elements test, the mere possession of such a weapon demonstrates a „“general readiness to do evil.”‟ (Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 315.) We further conclude that the trial court did not err in permitting defendant‟s impeachment with his prior conviction for possession of an illegal assault weapon.

See also SFGate - http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2012/02/10/owning-assault-gun-growing-pot-are-immoral-court-says/?gta=commentlistpos#commentlistpos

h/t Alphecca (http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1128)

Connor P Price
02-11-2012, 2:23 PM
SERIOUSLY!?!

nick
02-11-2012, 2:24 PM
Witch! Witch! Burn her! Burn her!

YubaRiver
02-11-2012, 2:29 PM
"There’s a fine line between conventional firearms and assault weapons, he said — in some cases, a difference of a single bullet"

Oh, it is the bullet that makes it an assault weapon.

nick
02-11-2012, 2:37 PM
Now that I'm done with my first reaction, it would've been pretty funny, if the fact that the people who are either so bizarrely ignorant of the subject they weigh in on ("the weapon possessed the characteristics that made it particularly dangerous to human life", "Such crimes involve an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to others or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people", really? That describes the possession of a rifle with some extra cosmetic features?), or are so disgustingly dishonest and malicious in promoting their agenda were given so much power over our lives wasn't so sad.

nick
02-11-2012, 2:41 PM
"There’s a fine line between conventional firearms and assault weapons, he said — in some cases, a difference of a single bullet"

Oh, it is the bullet that makes it an assault weapon.

A legal line so fine that it's well-nigh impossible to see, even for the people whose job it is to know these laws. A common sense line so fine that a person with a modicum of honesty and willing to spend a day learning about guns will likely not be able to find it, as the line is made of hot air and dishonest and ignorant rhetoric.

vantec08
02-11-2012, 2:47 PM
"the mere possession of such a weapon demonstrates a 'general readiness to do evil.”

The same can be said about a certificate of election. I'm not even going to get started on this ignorance.

BobB35
02-11-2012, 2:50 PM
Sad, Sad, sad....and this is the same justice system that is supposed to rule the way CGF thinks it will rule.

Maybe, but at this point the justice system is so infected with people lacking in common sense and moral turpitude....any case could go any way depending on who the judge is. For a country supposedly based on the rule of law and not men....it sure does seem like the men and women that wear the black sure do make this stuff up as they go along.


Pardon me if I don't hold out a lot of hope in the "in"justice system....

nicki
02-11-2012, 2:56 PM
First it appears the defendant didn't have a medical Mj card. Perhaps he may have a defense of being mentally impaired for not getting one.:rolleyes:

Anyone growing 17 plants who doesn't have a get out of jail card deserves what they get, the sad part is we get to waste taxpayer dollars for his stupidity.

If he is a previous felon, he can't even own a single shot 22, much less an evil assault rifle.

Bad defendant establishing terrible case law. Wonder what will happen if one of the California pot legalization measures that allows people to grow 24 plants passes to this case.:eek:

Nicki

bandook
02-11-2012, 2:58 PM
A California court findeth what the California legislature claimeth (when they passed the ban)... why is this a surprise.

bandook
02-11-2012, 3:02 PM
First it appears the defendant didn't have a medical Mj card. Perhaps he may have a defense of being mentally impaired for not getting one.:rolleyes:

Anyone growing 17 plants who doesn't have a get out of jail card deserves what they get, the sad part is we get to waste taxpayer dollars for his stupidity.

If he is a previous felon, he can't even own a single shot 22, much less an evil assault rifle.

Bad defendant establishing terrible case law. Wonder what will happen if one of the California pot legalization measures that allows people to grow 24 plants passes to this case.:eek:

Nicki

You can add the burglary tools to the 'immoral' list. Doesn't look like a fine upstanding citizen to me. (and this was his second cultivation arrest within that year).
Looks like the judges took the totality of the case, determined he was a habitual law breaker (guns, drugs, burglary) - hence of bad moral character.

Gray Peterson
02-11-2012, 3:03 PM
Sad, Sad, sad....and this is the same justice system that is supposed to rule the way CGF thinks it will rule.

Nearly all of our civil cases are in the federal courts. State courts rule correctly on civil preemption grounds, but not these.

Maybe, but at this point the justice system is so infected with people lacking in common sense and moral turpitude....any case could go any way depending on who the judge is. For a country supposedly based on the rule of law and not men....it sure does seem like the men and women that wear the black sure do make this stuff up as they go along.


Pardon me if I don't hold out a lot of hope in the "in"justice system....

What do you want us to do? Haynie and Richards v Harris, against the "feature" ban, had already been filed.

Despair is not an option....

1911su16b870
02-11-2012, 3:07 PM
Assaulting someone with something makes that thing an "assault" item. Things are inanimate even after someone uses them as a tool to do evil.

Connor P Price
02-11-2012, 3:24 PM
Sad, Sad, sad....and this is the same justice system that is supposed to rule the way CGF thinks it will rule.

Maybe, but at this point the justice system is so infected with people lacking in common sense and moral turpitude....any case could go any way depending on who the judge is. For a country supposedly based on the rule of law and not men....it sure does seem like the men and women that wear the black sure do make this stuff up as they go along.


Pardon me if I don't hold out a lot of hope in the "in"justice system....

Heller, McDonald, Ezell, CGF v Ventura... civil cases are going our way. There's a reason for that. Don't be discouraged by criminal cases being decided poorly.

In all honesty, the defendant may very well be an individual completely lacking in morals. I don't think I have a problem with the actual ruling so much as the language that suggests that the mere possession of a particular type of weapon suggests immorality.

Kauf
02-11-2012, 4:20 PM
Librarian (or anyone else who doesn't mind helping) I don't speak legaleze all that well. Any way you could explain in laymans terms what this is saying? I don't know the background of this case so maybe that would help. Thanks guys

blakdawg
02-11-2012, 4:58 PM
The correct link for the opinion is

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B228244.PDF

blakdawg
02-11-2012, 5:13 PM
Librarian (or anyone else who doesn't mind helping) I don't speak legaleze all that well. Any way you could explain in laymans terms what this is saying? I don't know the background of this case so maybe that would help. Thanks guys

The defendant was accused of a variety of crimes, all centering on his possession of items which he shouldn't have possessed. The items were found during a search of his property.

The defendant testified at his trial that some of the prohibited items were not his, and that some of the qualities of the items that made them prohibited (altered/removed serial number) were unknown to him.

Because he testified as a witness, the prosecution was allowed to introduce some kinds of evidence about his moral character - specifically, if he had been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, the prosecution would be allowed to make that known to the jury.

The defendant had previously been convicted of felony unlawful possession of an assault weapon (former Penal Code 12280(b)).

So, to determine whether or not that prior conviction would be admissible in the trial, the trial court needed to determine whether or not possession of an assault weapon was a crime of moral turpitude.

According to the appellate court's opinion:

Crimes involve moral turpitude when they reveal dishonesty, a “general readiness to do evil,‟” “bad character,” or “moral depravity.” (Id. at pp. 306, 314.) Such crimes involve an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to others or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people. (People v. Brooks (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 669, 671.)

The trial court looked at the legislative findings that were part of the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which created Penal Code 12280 (don't forget the firearm sections of the PC have since been renumbered) and decided that the legislature had identified "assault weapons" as being primarily used to commit crimes, and given that conclusion, decided that possession of an unregistered assault weapon was a felony involving moral turpitude.

The core reasoning regarding that seems to be in this part of the opinion:

In the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (the Act), which includes section 12280, the Legislature found and declared that each assault firearm “poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state [and] has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (a).) The Act defines “assault weapons” as specific types of semiautomatic weapons, listing them by manufacturer and model. (§ 12276; see also §12276.5, subd. (a).) The Legislature expressly declared that its intent was not “to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (a).) Thus, it is clear that the Act‟s focus is on weapons used primarily to commit crimes, like that of section 12020, which “outlaws a class of instruments normally used only for criminal purposes. [Citation.]” (Garrett, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 800.)

pointedstick
02-11-2012, 6:51 PM
So I guess police officers are nearly all guilty of committing crimes of moral turpitude then? Driving around with those patrol rifles sure does indicate a general readiness to do evil.

safewaysecurity
02-11-2012, 7:01 PM
Judge should be in an insane asylum.

OleCuss
02-11-2012, 7:01 PM
I think blakdawg was touching on the reality.

When I was reading this through I thought the court was being unfairly treated, and I still do.

The guy illegally owned an "assault weapon". I'm not so sure that in that context, the mere possession of such a weapon demonstrates a,“general readiness to do evil." is a totally outrageous statement.

After all, in the context the "mere possession of such a weapon" is referring to an illegally owned assault weapon and thus could be alternatively read as, "the mere possession of an illegally owned assault weapon demonstrates a "general readiness to do evil."

After all, illegally owning an "Assault Weapon" really could point to general moral terpitude - assuming that ownership was not inadvertent.

I shall prepare for my beating.

tabrisnet
02-11-2012, 7:03 PM
May not be relevant, given apparent emphasis on unregistered

ja308
02-11-2012, 7:11 PM
the judge is taking the approach of international law, which he/she hopes will be the norm for member state USA.

Recall SC justice Ginsburg telling Egypt "they should use the so african constitution rather than ours"?

Personally ,unless more people learn US constitution and bor. This will be an easy task.

The War Wagon
02-11-2012, 7:27 PM
So the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, & Coast Guard - are all READY to do EVIL?!?! :eek:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae324/skatris/dr-evil.jpg

Who knew THIS guy, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?!?! :facepalm::rolleyes:

speedrrracer
02-11-2012, 7:57 PM
Time goes on, but nothing changes

still trying to tie together that "breaking a law" necessarily equals "immorality"

as it has been since the beginning of time, the real crimes are stupidity and apathy

Knuckle Dragger
02-11-2012, 8:31 PM
The judge sort of has a point and it's an example of an early battle we lost to the antis: The battle to control that narrative. Once an object is tagged with an intentionally pejorative descriptor like 'assault' it stands to reason that the object will be view negatively. The word 'assault' generally has negative connotations and to someone who has not idea of the definition, 'assault weapon' sounds godawful.

If the guy's previous conviction had been for an illegally possessed semi-automatic rifle, the judge would not have so easily been able to come to his conclusion. But with a name like 'assault weapon' what possible good could come from a rifle like that?

He lost badly in making the definitions and that is why it's so important call an AWB what it is - a ban on semi-automatic rifles.

BigDogatPlay
02-11-2012, 9:47 PM
Excellent analysis by blakdawg. However, this....

the mere possession of such a weapon demonstrates a „“general readiness to do evil.

still feels like a really over the top choice of words on the part of the court.

safewaysecurity
02-11-2012, 9:55 PM
Btw, doesn't that mean anyone with a legally registered AW in Cali falls under this?

Wherryj
02-11-2012, 10:40 PM
"There’s a fine line between conventional firearms and assault weapons, he said — in some cases, a difference of a single bullet"

Oh, it is the bullet that makes it an assault weapon.

I thought that it was the pistol grip???

rugershooter
02-11-2012, 10:52 PM
I think blakdawg was touching on the reality.

When I was reading this through I thought the court was being unfairly treated, and I still do.

The guy illegally owned an "assault weapon". I'm not so sure that in that context, is a totally outrageous statement.

After all, in the context the "mere possession of such a weapon" is referring to an illegally owned assault weapon and thus could be alternatively read as, "the mere possession of an illegally owned assault weapon demonstrates a "general readiness to do evil."

After all, illegally owning an "Assault Weapon" really could point to general moral terpitude - assuming that ownership was not inadvertent.

I shall prepare for my beating.


That presumes that violating the law= evil=immoral. That's not necessarily the case. There has always traditionally been a distinction between two categories of law malum in se and malum prohibitum; wrong by virtue of being wrong, and wrong because the law prohibits it.

wash
02-11-2012, 11:11 PM
Hmm, looking scary is moral turpitude?

That's going to be a hard sell when someone gets caught with a legally owned "large capacity" magazine inadvertently inserted in a bullet buttoned OLL.

blakdawg
02-12-2012, 1:02 AM
I don't know what happened in the trial court or the appellate court - but my first reaction is to think that it's a shame the defendant didn't have an attorney who liked guns (esp. modern rifles) because the "facts" that the opinion discussed were biased and incomplete, and it's possible that the courts would have reached a different conclusion if they were given better information.

(It's also possible that they were given better information, but chose to omit it from the opinion to create the illusion that there's no other way to consider the question.)

Crucially, the opinion jumps straight from "assault weapons are for killing people" to assuming that killing people is always morally wrong - which totally ignores the US Supreme Court's opinions re the 2A and a right to self-defense, which would include killing people.

And I'm really curious if anyone educated the court that the "assault weapon" distinction being made here can rest on details as small as the shape of the grip or the presence or absence of a bullet button. The court would have me believe that when I put my AR upper on my registered Bushmaster "assault weapon" lower receiver, that firearm is inherently immoral, but that if I put the same upper on an off-list lower receiver, that firearm is somehow totally different.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to introduce new facts into the legal process at the appellate stage, so it can be tough to get those ideas and distinctions before an appellate court if they weren't raised at lower levels.

I'm personally intrigued to see what happens to this case in the future. Many CA appellate opinions aren't certified for publication - which means that they really only apply to that particular case, although they're clues about how another court might see things. This opinion has been certified for publication, so it's real law, at least in CA's 2nd Appellate District (Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties).

wildhawker
02-12-2012, 1:52 AM
For those viewers not familiar with California's having a single Court of Appeal [that is simply divided up geographically into districts], the subject decision is binding on all superior courts.

-Brandon

oaklander
02-12-2012, 2:22 AM
The CRAZY part is that by them arguing it as a moral issue - THEY ARE ADMITTING THAT SELF DEFENSE IS A MORAL ISSUE.

This puts it squarely into the realm of a civil right. I don't even need to read the blog articles, but I am guessing that is what the articles say.

The WINNING part of this is that they are CLEARLY on the wrong side of this. Starting with Jesus, The Prophets before him, Ghandi, Lao Tzu - etc. . . self-defense, equality, reciprocity, etc. have always been considered morally correct. This means that even those sages who did not explicitly condone self-defense, as almost all of them do - well - even those would likely agree.

I don't even know what this case is about. And it does not matter - anything that seeks to restrict our right to defend ourselves is an assault on our civil and human rights.

These are seriously bad people who want to do this to us, and I have rarely ever met one in real life. But they apparently infest our court system.

oaklander
02-12-2012, 2:27 AM
Let me explain it another way. . .

In THIS country, the morally correct side eventually wins over time. The reason is that even with all our faults, we are still THE MOST FAIR country.

All major issues become a battle of morals, as a result of this.

AND WE SIMPLY ARE RIGHT.

The CRAZY part is that by them arguing it as a moral issue - THEY ARE ADMITTING THAT SELF DEFENSE IS A MORAL ISSUE.

This puts it squarely into the realm of a civil right. I don't even need to read the blog articles, but I am guessing that is what the articles say.

The WINNING part of this is that they are CLEARLY on the wrong side of this. Starting with Jesus, The Prophets before him, Ghandi, Lao Tzu - etc. . . self-defense, equality, reciprocity, etc. have always been considered morally correct. This means that even those sages who did not explicitly condone self-defense, as almost all of them do - well - even those would likely agree.

I don't even know what this case is about. And it does not matter - anything that seeks to restrict our right to defend ourselves is an assault on our civil and human rights.

These are seriously bad people who want to do this to us, and I have rarely ever met one in real life. But they apparently infest our court system.

blakdawg
02-12-2012, 2:38 AM
For those viewers not familiar with California's having a single Court of Appeal [that is simply divided up geographically into districts], the subject decision is binding on all superior courts.

-Brandon

Right, but not on other appellate courts.

lockandloadllc
02-12-2012, 5:56 AM
"the mere possession of such a weapon demonstrates a „“general readiness to do evil"

I thought we are all supposed to be innocent till proven guilty, wouldn't that be going against that....

r3dn3ck
02-12-2012, 6:29 AM
tons of police officers possess those weapons, guess they're disqualified from being cops due to moral questionability. So do millions of regular citizens in other states. It would seem that the judge has asserted that everyone who owns such a device is guilty of moral turpitude (I thought we were free to act immorally since you can't legislate morality, I thought we're just not allowed to be illegal). Doesn't that have some serious negative impact on the standing and rights of around 100 million americans who own things defined by california as AW's? If the laws of our state are to be applied to anyone that visits our state then the rest of the country might want to know that they've been deemed "ready to do evil" by our legal system and should stay out of our state. Think of it, you own one at your home in texas. You come here and commit some wobbler crime. You're now a felon because you own an AW and even if it's not in your hands when you committed your crime, you own it so you're an admittedly bad person anyway and nobody cares if we send your arse to prison for nothing.

The whole growing pot thing: Seriously, it's a farking plant. Growing a plant being a felony is stupid especially since it was banned based on racism and corruption and the desire to give the DuPont family a license to print money and the treasury department something else to do after prohibition was repealed. There are some acts of civil disobedience that are helping freedom... people growing pot in the face of the feds is one. Feds can keep out of what people put into their OWN bodies.

The whole judgment is no different than saying that anyone with a collection of tentacle porn is entitled to having no assumption of innocence for child molestation because he grew apples in a no apple-growing area.

Peter.Steele
02-12-2012, 6:33 AM
That presumes that violating the law= evil=immoral. That's not necessarily the case. There has always traditionally been a distinction between two categories of law malum in se and malum prohibitum; wrong by virtue of being wrong, and wrong because the law prohibits it.



This is true.

BUT here's the thing: the legislative intent here - and the court must use that in making its decision - is clearly to make possession of an AW part of the malum in se category.

Purely from the point of view of the laws as they exist in this state, the court turned in a perfectly reasoned opinion. Of course we all know that this is a load of horse****, but ...

ccmc
02-12-2012, 6:44 AM
I think blakdawg was touching on the reality.

When I was reading this through I thought the court was being unfairly treated, and I still do.

The guy illegally owned an "assault weapon". I'm not so sure that in that context, is a totally outrageous statement.

After all, in the context the "mere possession of such a weapon" is referring to an illegally owned assault weapon and thus could be alternatively read as, "the mere possession of an illegally owned assault weapon demonstrates a "general readiness to do evil."

After all, illegally owning an "Assault Weapon" really could point to general moral terpitude - assuming that ownership was not inadvertent.

I shall prepare for my beating.

No beating from my side. In the context of California law you're probably correct. I'm on this particular section of this forum because it's a great 2A site. My eyes kind of glaze over when I hear things like bullet button, off list lower, assault weapon, etc since these terms don't exist in the vast majority of the US. But a case like this one where the court makes such an explicit statement really brings it home.

ccmc
02-12-2012, 6:51 AM
tons of police officers possess those weapons, guess they're disqualified from being cops due to moral questionability. So do millions of regular citizens in other states. It would seem that the judge has asserted that everyone who owns such a device is guilty of moral turpitude (I thought we were free to act immorally since you can't legislate morality, I thought we're just not allowed to be illegal). Doesn't that have some serious negative impact on the standing and rights of around 100 million americans who own things defined by california as AW's? If the laws of our state are to be applied to anyone that visits our state then the rest of the country might want to know that they've been deemed "ready to do evil" by our legal system and should stay out of our state. Think of it, you own one at your home in texas. You come here and commit some wobbler crime. You're now a felon because you own an AW and even if it's not in your hands when you committed your crime, you own it so you're an admittedly bad person anyway and nobody cares if we send your arse to prison for nothing.

Excellent points, but the California politicians that enacted these laws and the voters that put them into office would probably rather not have the 100 million Americans that legally own what California defines as assault weapons in the state anyway.

SanPedroShooter
02-12-2012, 7:26 AM
Ha ha, this state is awesome! I'll see you guys on the 'right' side of the border.... Not only do we risk our freedom and lives, temp fate, law and/or a policemans bullet for a hobby in many cases, and the possible defense of our very lives in others, now we are possibly 'immoral' and guilty of 'moral turpitude' for possesing a hunting rifle with a bit of plastic sticking off it or the wrong logo engraved on the side.

You can keep your 'weather'.... I know where I'm not wanted.

Also, if this case is going to be appealed, can CGF help the guys lawyer? Not to get him off, he sounds like a ****head, I mean to clear up any gun related issues. It sounds like the court is taking the legislature at their word. As stupid and ignorant as the legislatures conclusion is, is the court not correct in taking their 'word' for it?

hoffmang
02-12-2012, 9:50 AM
You can keep your 'weather'.... I know where I'm not wanted.I refuse to be a victim of intimidation. You should try it!

Also, if this case is going to be appealed, can CGF help the guys lawyer? Not to get him off, he sounds like a ****head, I mean to clear up any gun related issues. It sounds like the court is taking the legislature at their word. As stupid and ignorant as the legislatures conclusion is, is the court not correct in taking their 'word' for it?
The number one way we can help this guy is to take a likely win in Wilson v. Cook County (IL Supremes) and import it into California via Haynie v. Harris and/or a subsequent case.

Soon it will be clearly immoral to routinely violate the bill of rights like the California courts so enjoy today.

-Gene

yellowfin
02-12-2012, 10:39 AM
This also benefits us in another way in that it admits that CA's laws are based on qualitative moral judgments of bad feeling. This reduces them down to basic censorship and thus open to attack as such.

Peter.Steele
02-12-2012, 11:29 AM
This also benefits us in another way in that it admits that CA's laws are based on qualitative moral judgments of bad feeling. This reduces them down to basic censorship and thus open to attack as such.



This is a very good point ... now that we've got a specific finding by a court that possession of a particular item shows that you have a predisposition toward a certain morally reprehensible activity ... it's not too hard to show that it is a demonstrably false conclusion.

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 11:49 AM
I refuse to be a victim of intimidation. You should try it!


The number one way we can help this guy is to take a likely win in Wilson v. Cook County (IL Supremes) and import it into California via Haynie v. Harris and/or a subsequent case.

Soon it will be clearly immoral to routinely violate the bill of rights like the California courts so enjoy today.

-Gene

I do not believe this ruling is a result of intimidation.

The judge is articulating a fact that is culturally true in every state that has policies against civil gun ownership. She has simply put in an official statement what is considered a cultural norm in your state;and that cultural norm is anyone who owns an AK or AR15 -or, put to its logical conclusion, any firearm at all- is an immoral person who is up to no good just by de facto ownership.

To such people their thought process is why do you NEED a rifle? Heck why do you NEED a gun at all? Millions of law abiding people in California go about their days without an HK strapped to their hip or even locked in a gun safe at home, so why do YOU feel the need to arm yourself-unless you are obivously up to no good. Such people do not care about the truth that violence is commonplace and that self defense is a prescribed human right. They only care that they have lived their entire lives without a violent event and their neighbors haven't been involved in a violent event, so anyone who arms themselves must thus be either insane or up to no good.

Thus, the "moral turpitude" speech. The Constitution is a dead argument because these people know no such thing. No one in the public school system has educated them on the national Bill of Rights, and all of us alive will drop dead of shock before the Federal government goes out of its way to describe limits on its central authority. As far as the civil populations of urban California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York ( among other places) are concerned guns are a necessary evil for law enforcement and military personnel which have as much business in civilian hands as a nuclear fission bomb.


Court rulings will go a long way to safeguarding all our rights on paper, but equal effort must be spent on educating the hoplophobe neighbor and coworker that owning a gun is not the mark of a terrorist, as no one else is going to do so.

hoffmang
02-12-2012, 12:32 PM
I do not believe this ruling is a result of intimidation.

I think you've misread me a bit. My post had two very separate points in it. "Intimidation" was in response to the poster who said he would move out of California because he wasn't wanted here as a person who takes firearms seriously.

The ruling analysis is VERY different and blending my two points leads to odd outcomes.

-Gene

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 12:40 PM
I think you've misread me a bit. My post had two very separate points in it. "Intimidation" was in response to the poster who said he would move out of California because he wasn't wanted here as a person who takes firearms seriously.

The ruling analysis is VERY different and blending my two points leads to odd outcomes.

-Gene

Perhaps I have. It isn't my intention to confuse the intent of your posts.

But haranguing someone for leaving a state that plainly does not desire his company is taking an unfair step. Plainly enough of the citizens of California feel the legislature is doing right by restricting gun ownership via their electoral support of such politicians .

If one man believes his rights are being infringed by the laws in his area of residence,he should feel free to move someplace that welcomes his tax dollars and AR15 rifles hand in hand without being accused of folding to 'intimidation'. Just because one is not physically located in a gun-regulated doesn't mean they are 'out of the fight'. I don't live in California , and have left Illinois for good. I still participate and support your cause just the same, as we all must hang together or we will all surely hang separately .

SanPedroShooter
02-12-2012, 12:41 PM
I agree Gene, if was just the gun issue I could deal. I still make donations to CGF and I'm still a CRPA member, I am just raising my family out side of California. We all do what we think is best, and know that without you and CGF, we'd be in bind I cant even imagine. I was wondering the other day what the BOF would be up to if CGF was never created. It seems like there is no one that will call them on their ****, not unless it is brought before the court, and even then... Same with the Sherrifs and LEO in this state.

I shudder to think.

rp55
02-12-2012, 12:42 PM
No surprise at all in that ruling. It is precisely how the vast majority of voters in SF Bay area and LA view gun possession. We should make it a sticky for the enlightenment of all the proponents of reclaiming our rights via the initiative process.

oaklander
02-12-2012, 12:52 PM
No surprise at all in that ruling. It is precisely how the vast majority of voters in SF Bay area and LA view gun possession. We should make it a sticky for the enlightenment of all the proponents of reclaiming our rights via the initiative process.

I do not know about SF, or the Bay Area, in general. I can tell folks that the majority of law abiding citizens in the FLAT parts of Oakland, many of whom are also church goers (like me), strongly support the right of self defense.

I know this because I literally talk to hundreds of people per month (I talk to everyone, it's a gift, or a curse!)

:)

I think that there are TWO ways of thinking, in general:

1) SOME people think that ALL people are generally BAD, and it is the government's JOB to protect US, from US.

OR

2) SOME people think that ALL people are generally GOOD, and it is OUR JOB, as citizens of this great country, to DEFEND ourselves, and our country from folks in #1, above.

I tend to side with #2, as do most of us.

hoffmang
02-12-2012, 1:46 PM
Perhaps I have. It isn't my intention to confuse the intent of your posts.

But haranguing someone for leaving a state that plainly does not desire his company is taking an unfair step. Plainly enough of the citizens of California feel the legislature is doing right by restricting gun ownership via their electoral support of such politicians .

I don't think you'd apply the same logic to Dr. King or African Americans in Birmingham Alabama circa 1963.

You restore rights in the place they're oppressed.

-Gene

oaklander
02-12-2012, 1:55 PM
I don't think you'd apply the same logic to Dr. King or African Americans in Birmingham Alabama circa 1963.

You restore rights in the place they're oppressed.

-Gene

YES!

And many of us are working locally in our own communities to do that. I implore ALL Calgunners to realize that you DO have power to make POSITIVE changes in your own communities.

You don't have to run for office or anything.

Some of the ways are:

1) VOTE

2) Attend your local City Council meetings (and school board meetings, etc.)

3) Work within your other communities (such as faith-based, etc.) and spread the word that we are working to restore our civil rights.

4) Take someone shooting.

5) JOIN, and work with your local NRA Members' Councils.

6) Same with your Calguns C3 chapters.

7) Always remember that in many places, you may be the ONLY person that
someone knows, who is a rights activist (and that IS what we are). So act like it. Be respectable.

8) Create friendly relationships with your local media, and with your state and local elected representatives.

9) NEVER be strident or angry - we ARE the good guys and gals, and so we act like it.

10) Try to avoid mixing in other issues with our rights issues. This means that IF you want to be an advocate for our rights, don't mix in other things, for numerous reasons.

Mrbroom
02-12-2012, 2:11 PM
YES!

And many of us are working locally in our own communities to do that. I implore ALL Calgunners to realize that you DO have power to make POSITIVE changes in your own communities.

You don't have to run for office or anything.

Some of the ways are:

1) VOTE

2) Attend your local City Council meetings (and school board meetings, etc.)

3) Work within your other communities (such as faith-based, etc.) and spread the word that we are working to restore our civil rights.

4) Take someone shooting.

5) JOIN, and work with your local NRA Members' Councils.

6) Same with your Calguns C3 chapters.

7) Always remember that in many places, you may be the ONLY person that
someone knows, who is a rights activist (and that IS what we are). So act like it. Be respectable.

8) Create friendly relationships with your local media, and with your state and local elected representatives.

9) NEVER be strident or angry - we ARE the good guys and gals, and so we act like it.

10) Try to avoid mixing in other issues with our rights issues. This means that IF you want to be an advocate for our rights, don't mix in other things, for numerous reasons.

1-10!!!!! This is like the ten commandments to effect posistive change!!!

oaklander
02-12-2012, 2:23 PM
1-10!!!!! This is like the ten commandments to effect posistive change!!!

THANKS!!!!!!!!!!

LOL, and we don't even need to break them, since none of us are worshiping craven idols (other than our newest Romy builds!). . .

;)

PS - here is a chart that explains the type of thinking that I think I am seeing within our opposition. . . (LOWER LEFT). . .

Please let me know if it makes sense. It has to do with how people view the role of the government. . .

http://bit.ly/x15QdB

ETA: we are obviously trying to move CA to the upper right, and away from lower left. . .

ALSO - a lot of this has to do with how individual people THINK! Seriously, I have found that people who think that others are generally BAD, tend to be in lower LEFT, and those who think that most people are generally GOOD (and hence, can be trusted) are in the upper RIGHT.

This is from me talking to literally THOUSANDS of people over the last 6 years or so. THAT is why if I get into an online argument with someone (which I try and avoid now), I pretty much always ask them if they think that people are good. If they do, then there is HOPE for them, and I might be able to convince them we are correct. IF the person just thinks that all people are pretty much evil, or can't be trusted, there is really nothing you can do to change that person's mind. Their entire thinking is distorted. SOME people view the world as full of bad people, who MUST be controlled by Mother Russia, or Uncle Sam, or whatever.

Most of MY friends figure that we are mostly grown up enough to figure things out on our own, with a little non-governmental help and guidance, now and then.

IVC
02-12-2012, 3:04 PM
1) VOTE
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Who wants to bet where all of our electoral votes are going this fall?

4) Take someone shooting.
By far the best way to do it - I've never met anyone who didn't chuckle in awe when the first round went off.

9) NEVER be strident or angry ...
Take this into account if responding to my post :).

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 3:25 PM
I don't think you'd apply the same logic to Dr. King or African Americans in Birmingham Alabama circa 1963.

You restore rights in the place they're oppressed.

-Gene

You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

Perhaps a more relevant factor in your comparison is that the civil rights violations in the 1960s were much more widespread than the gun rights struggle we face today. MLK did not HAVE a place to relocate that would treat him and his family with full civil rights, as racial prejudice was ingrained into the culture of America no matter what state one lived in.

As for gun rights, we as yet do not live in a climate where California type gun laws are a national norm.The states that are committed to the goal of civil disarmament are the most intransigent ones in the Union, and the circumstances of how they got as badly as they are are factors which cannot be reversed in a mans lifetime. Do not misunderstand, I support your efforts in the legal level, but part of why California and other states are in the mess they are is because the generation of voters at the ballot today have rejected the principles of self determination and small government.That sort of generation shift takes time to undo.

oaklander
02-12-2012, 3:40 PM
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

Perhaps a more relevant factor in your comparison is that the civil rights violations in the 1960s were much more widespread than the gun rights struggle we face today. MLK did not HAVE a place to relocate that would treat him and his family with full civil rights, as racial prejudice was ingrained into the culture of America no matter what state one lived in.

As for gun rights, we as yet do not live in a climate where California type gun laws are a national norm.The states that are committed to the goal of civil disarmament are the most intransigent ones in the Union, and the circumstances of how they got as badly as they are are factors which cannot be reversed in a mans lifetime. Do not misunderstand, I support your efforts in the legal level, but part of why California and other states are in the mess they are is because the generation of voters at the ballot today have rejected the principles of self determination and small government.That sort of generation shift takes time to undo.

Actually, the rights violations are just as bad, and more pernicious - no matter how you look at them.

If you want to analyze things from a race perspective, a majority of people of color live in places where they have little to ZERO self-defense rights. Think about the cities that have the highest populations of blacks, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_large_African_American_po pulations

NOW - match that up with the cities that have the WORST record on self-defense laws. There is a HUGE overlap.

In fact, I see this in CA. The most LTC-friendly counties are predominantly NOT counties that contain large populations of non-latino people of color. See: http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative, and compare to http://fiatmap.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/proper-african-american-map.jpg.

NOW - think about this. . .

What RIGHT is the MOST VALUABLE???

Would that NOT be the right to be alive???

Our political opposition will attempt to use your SAME argument to marginalize the right of self-defense. It IS a basic right, and in this country, it is MUCH more available to whites.

LET ME REPHRASE:

What WE are doing is the SAME THING as the black civil rights work in the 1960's. We even have some of the SAME PEOPLE DOING IT. One of the people in our coalition is a former freedom rider, and there are more than one of us who fought the civil rights battles back in the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, 90's, and 00's.

I myself marched for black civil rights in Compton, in the mid 1980's. I do not think it is even logical to separate out our coalition from the black civil rights movement. Parts of us, have been parts of it. And that is just verifiable truth. All rights movements tend to work in tandem, but here - it's not just that. In many senses, and through many connections, we are actually part of it, a continuation of it, and a logical extension of it.

NOW, I am not trying to hitch a wagon, or "buy" us more moral weight than we are entitled to. But you need to kind of "see" that this is about more than being able to buy neat toys. THIS RIGHT underlies all other rights, and without THIS RIGHT, there would have been NO 1960's BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, as we know it.

I am not the one saying it - just read the scholarship to realize how often lawfully-owned firearms were used to protect the brave men and women who fought for ALL RIGHTS. The reason I say ALL RIGHTS is because what hurts one American, hurts ALL Americans.

I am not going to back down on this, or even argue with you. Please, think about this right, and what it means. It is much more important than I think you give it credit for, and it is a lot more intertwined in with our basic rights struggles than you first imagine.

hoffmang
02-12-2012, 4:11 PM
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

That seems an obtuse response. As you clearly can't dispute the key is to fight in the few urban areas that treat gun owners as unwelcome guests.

You're quite right that MLK went all over the south - but he remained living in the south. So do we go all over our "south," but that still doesn't mean we should all give up and move out of the places where oppression is happening.

That's exactly what the oppressors want. Giving it to them is short sighted.

-Gene

PS. I'm not intentionally trying to be mean to those who decided they can't afford this fight - it's not cheap on a whole lot of levels - most non cash. However, the "just move" thing is hilarious and lame. You can't win this war by boycotting.

What would have happened if Thomas Jefferson and John Adams decided to just pack up and move to French Louisiana since they weren't all that welcome in the Crown Colonies?

RRichie09
02-12-2012, 4:13 PM
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

Perhaps a more relevant factor in your comparison is that the civil rights violations in the 1960s were much more widespread than the gun rights struggle we face today. MLK did not HAVE a place to relocate that would treat him and his family with full civil rights, as racial prejudice was ingrained into the culture of America no matter what state one lived in.

As for gun rights, we as yet do not live in a climate where California type gun laws are a national norm.The states that are committed to the goal of civil disarmament are the most intransigent ones in the Union, and the circumstances of how they got as badly as they are are factors which cannot be reversed in a mans lifetime. Do not misunderstand, I support your efforts in the legal level, but part of why California and other states are in the mess they are is because the generation of voters at the ballot today have rejected the principles of self determination and small government.That sort of generation shift takes time to undo.

But the only the most important thing people like you and I can do is to vote and you cannot do that from a distance. Basically, what have you done for CA gun laws besides support the cause in your head?

taperxz
02-12-2012, 4:13 PM
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

Perhaps a more relevant factor in your comparison is that the civil rights violations in the 1960s were much more widespread than the gun rights struggle we face today. MLK did not HAVE a place to relocate that would treat him and his family with full civil rights, as racial prejudice was ingrained into the culture of America no matter what state one lived in.

As for gun rights, we as yet do not live in a climate where California type gun laws are a national norm.The states that are committed to the goal of civil disarmament are the most intransigent ones in the Union, and the circumstances of how they got as badly as they are are factors which cannot be reversed in a mans lifetime. Do not misunderstand, I support your efforts in the legal level, but part of why California and other states are in the mess they are is because the generation of voters at the ballot today have rejected the principles of self determination and small government.That sort of generation shift takes time to undo.

Try not to be so narrow minded on the "rights issues" While MLK was certainly an icon, i thinks its fair to say he didn't do it all on his own. There were in fact, "family" all over the place in this country spreading his word and ideas. (Family as in followers and civil rights workers. Not all of them got along or saw eye to eye in many cases.

Civil rights for blacks had a true "movement" much like the one that CGF has started now. The difference? Internet speed! One thing MLK never had.

oaklander
02-12-2012, 4:24 PM
You guys and gals rock!!!

I am super happy that we truly understand that it IS a rights issue. . .

Here is a graphic that I made using the two sources outlined in my previous post. Those of you who THINK that our civil rights have no relation to ALL civil rights, well - you kind of need to rethink things. . .

http://bit.ly/ynXHRc

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 4:27 PM
That seems an obtuse response. As you clearly can't dispute the key is to fight in the few urban areas that treat gun owners as unwelcome guests.

You're quite right that MLK went all over the south - but he remained living in the south. So do we go all over our "south," but that still doesn't mean we should all give up and move out of the places where oppression is happening.

That's exactly what the oppressors want. Giving it to them is short sighted.

-Gene

PS. I'm not intentionally trying to be mean to those who decided they can't afford this fight - it's not cheap on a whole lot of levels - most non cash. However, the "just move" thing is hilarious and lame. You can't win this war by boycotting.

What would have happened if Thomas Jefferson and John Adams decided to just pack up and move to French Louisiana since they weren't all that welcome in the Crown Colonies?

I am not disagreeing with any statements. MLK's fight and our fight are for the same thing. My point is that demeaning people who leave for better pastures is petty. By the logic of some members on this board, all who call themselves free gun owners should pull up stakes and move into California .


As far as advancing the cause of gun rights in California, I will freely state my contribution is bubkis. Its an unfortunate question though as I have never lived in California as an adult.Even though I do not live in Illinois, I am active in the 2nd Amendment fight in Illinois, such as it is. Ive motivated friends and family in Chicago to give a rats about their rights and I daresay there may be some progress on that front. Sure its only five people , but its a start. And I did it with my residence being in South Dakota.


My point is that whether your address is in South LA or South Texas, we are ALL in the same fight. Leftist politicians exist here in South Dakota as much as they do in any other place, the difference is that the people in this state know their rights and refuse to cede them to some slick talking guy or gal in a suit .Because one doesn't physically live in LA doesn't make a pro gun advocate some sort of traitor or runner, any more than white Americans who supported MLK and others during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement could be called the same.


Instead of demeaning someone who is fed up with submitting to a government run amok and the ever present possibility of going to jail just because they own a gun in a state which culturally criminalizes the practice , we should support those people wherever they go. The reason I am a member on this site is because taking the attitude of 'gun control laws aren't my problem' doesn't help anyone.

DannyInSoCal
02-12-2012, 4:28 PM
Thank a liberal...

taperxz
02-12-2012, 4:46 PM
I am not disagreeing with any statements. MLK's fight and our fight are for the same thing. My point is that demeaning people who leave for better pastures is petty. By the logic of some members on this board, all who call themselves free gun owners should pull up stakes and move into California .


As far as advancing the cause of gun rights in California, I will freely state my contribution is bubkis. Its an unfortunate question though as I have never lived in California as an adult.Even though I do not live in Illinois, I am active in the 2nd Amendment fight in Illinois, such as it is. Ive motivated friends and family in Chicago to give a rats about their rights and I daresay there may be some progress on that front. Sure its only five people , but its a start. And I did it with my residence being in South Dakota.


My point is that whether your address is in South LA or South Texas, we are ALL in the same fight. Leftist politicians exist here in South Dakota as much as they do in any other place, the difference is that the people in this state know their rights and refuse to cede them to some slick talking guy or gal in a suit .Because one doesn't physically live in LA doesn't make a pro gun advocate some sort of traitor or runner, any more than white Americans who supported MLK and others during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement could be called the same.


Instead of demeaning someone who is fed up with submitting to a government run amok and the ever present possibility of going to jail just because they own a gun in a state which culturally criminalizes the practice , we should support those people wherever they go. The reason I am a member on this site is because taking the attitude of 'gun control laws aren't my problem' doesn't help anyone.

You are missing the point of USING the entire Federal Judiciary System for our benefit here in CA

OleCuss
02-12-2012, 4:52 PM
A couple of points to be made:

1. Oaklander, there is some similarity between your graphic and the Pournelle Axes. Pournelle got some of the assignments of groups wrong, but his axes are interesting nonetheless.

2. It is important to distinguish between motivations. Some of us are "soldiers" and some of us are "civilians". A soldier will seek to engage and defeat the enemy and the civilians may not do so. It can sometimes be difficult for soldiers and civilians to understand each other's perspective.

3. Eventually you have to bring the fight to the OPFOR if you plan to win (there are some exceptions but they are not common). In our case, we are where the OPFOR is and if we are going to win we will have to use strategy and tactical planning along with maneuver and fires to successfully engage the OPFOR. To go elsewhere is to leave the battle - and the enemies of freedom will simply go where you've gone in order to enslave you there. Enough of us must stay and fight.

4. "Civilians" are essential. They make the fight worthwhile and their support for the fighters is essential. Also, there are strategic moves which they make possible. Support can come from a distance.


But we have to understand. The battle in California is key to securing our civil rights for our country. California won't do it alone, but I think that without the vigorous engagement by CGF here in California that our gains will/would be lost.

I think that as recently as one year ago I did not understand just how crucial the CGF fight really is on a national basis. But I'd bet that Alan Gura has several of our CGF board members and maybe a couple of CGNers on his speed dial - and for good reason.

The fight is here.

oaklander
02-12-2012, 7:00 PM
A couple of points to be made:

1. Oaklander, there is some similarity between your graphic and the Pournelle Axes. Pournelle got some of the assignments of groups wrong, but his axes are interesting nonetheless.

2. It is important to distinguish between motivations. Some of us are "soldiers" and some of us are "civilians". A soldier will seek to engage and defeat the enemy and the civilians may not do so. It can sometimes be difficult for soldiers and civilians to understand each other's perspective.

3. Eventually you have to bring the fight to the OPFOR if you plan to win (there are some exceptions but they are not common). In our case, we are where the OPFOR is and if we are going to win we will have to use strategy and tactical planning along with maneuver and fires to successfully engage the OPFOR. To go elsewhere is to leave the battle - and the enemies of freedom will simply go where you've gone in order to enslave you there. Enough of us must stay and fight.

4. "Civilians" are essential. They make the fight worthwhile and their support for the fighters is essential. Also, there are strategic moves which they make possible. Support can come from a distance.


But we have to understand. The battle in California is key to securing our civil rights for our country. California won't do it alone, but I think that without the vigorous engagement by CGF here in California that our gains will/would be lost.

I think that as recently as one year ago I did not understand just how crucial the CGF fight really is on a national basis. But I'd bet that Alan Gura has several of our CGF board members and maybe a couple of CGNers on his speed dial - and for good reason.

The fight is here.

YES!

And we need to remember that the fight is RIGHT HERE >.<

That dot represents where each of us is standing right now. Things do not just "happen," and it is incumbent on each of us to do what we can. If folks look at the stickies on this site, and also review the gun rights are civil rights site in my .sig, folks can glean a plethora of things that each of us can do.

It does NOT take money (although money is good, and PLEASE support our coalition), all it takes is maybe a few hours per week of folk's time. There is plenty of work!!!

I got my start signing up people at NRA booths at gun shows, through my local NRA MC. Just find something you like to do. I like to do BBQ's, and that is about all I do. Stay tuned for a HUGE and peaceful BBQ in Oakland, likely within the next 8 months or so. . .

;)

RRichie09
02-12-2012, 8:03 PM
My point is that demeaning people who leave for better pastures is petty.

If you hadn't mentioned that you could fight for our rights in CA from another state I would've kept my mouth shut. I too have considered moving out of CA, not just because of 2A rights but many other reasons, but once I move I'm not gonna pretend that I am not hurting 2A right in CA.

OleCuss
02-12-2012, 8:24 PM
When I was in Afghanistan I was equipped and fed directly and indirectly by civilians. Without civilian support (much of it very far away) we could not have carried out the fight.

Yeah, they weren't humping the ruck or taking the same chance at being a bullet-sponge, but that doesn't mean that they were irrelevant to the fight.

People who are not in California can still be helpful and supportive. IIRC, Gray doesn't live in California but he is a real champion of our rights here in California.

The essential fight is here. I will miss those who go elsewhere but I will not consider them irrelevant. But if too many fighters for our rights leave the California field of battle, those who oppose liberty will take the fight elsewhere with potentially unbearable results.

We can win here and the nation cannot afford the cost of losing here.

Gray Peterson
02-12-2012, 9:12 PM
A couple of points to be made:

1. Oaklander, there is some similarity between your graphic and the Pournelle Axes. Pournelle got some of the assignments of groups wrong, but his axes are interesting nonetheless.

2. It is important to distinguish between motivations. Some of us are "soldiers" and some of us are "civilians". A soldier will seek to engage and defeat the enemy and the civilians may not do so. It can sometimes be difficult for soldiers and civilians to understand each other's perspective.

3. Eventually you have to bring the fight to the OPFOR if you plan to win (there are some exceptions but they are not common). In our case, we are where the OPFOR is and if we are going to win we will have to use strategy and tactical planning along with maneuver and fires to successfully engage the OPFOR. To go elsewhere is to leave the battle - and the enemies of freedom will simply go where you've gone in order to enslave you there. Enough of us must stay and fight.

4. "Civilians" are essential. They make the fight worthwhile and their support for the fighters is essential. Also, there are strategic moves which they make possible. Support can come from a distance.


But we have to understand. The battle in California is key to securing our civil rights for our country. California won't do it alone, but I think that without the vigorous engagement by CGF here in California that our gains will/would be lost.

I think that as recently as one year ago I did not understand just how crucial the CGF fight really is on a national basis. But I'd bet that Alan Gura has several of our CGF board members and maybe a couple of CGNers on his speed dial - and for good reason.

The fight is here.

Indeed it is. I help in California primarily because California will set the constitutional minimum for the 9th Circuit, which includes my state, Washington. Also, I'm tired of people getting killed in California.

oaklander
02-12-2012, 10:02 PM
REALITY CHECK: http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2012/02/10/owning-assault-gun-growing-pot-are-immoral-court-says/?gta=commentlistpos#commentlistpos

Note the COMMENTS. . .

WE are not the only people who think this court decision does not make sense.

Stonewalker
02-12-2012, 11:42 PM
REALITY CHECK: http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2012/02/10/owning-assault-gun-growing-pot-are-immoral-court-says/?gta=commentlistpos#commentlistpos

Note the COMMENTS. . .

WE are not the only people who think this court decision does not make sense.

I must admit, I'm a bit impressed at the comments at the SFGate article which seem to offer principles that support our cause... -> "a plant is an inanimate object, a gun is an inanimate object. Both are incapable or moral decisions..."

This might be a whole lot easier than we are all making it out to be... just maybe.

oaklander
02-13-2012, 1:11 AM
I must admit, I'm a bit impressed at the comments at the SFGate article which seem to offer principles that support our cause... -> "a plant is an inanimate object, a gun is an inanimate object. Both are incapable or moral decisions..."

This might be a whole lot easier than we are all making it out to be... just maybe.

One thing I do, if the comments are on a site that uses FB, is to reach out to people who are sympathetic. There are a lot of gun owners out there who do not yet realize that CGN, RCC, SAF, CRPA, etc. . . even exist. . .

The basic mantra is "recruit," "recruit," "recruit."

:)

SanPedroShooter
02-13-2012, 8:24 AM
Great arguments, none of them are enough to justify staying to my dependants. We all do what we think is best. My unborn children will not be raised here, period.

I'll send some cash back over there wire when I get settled. Of course we arent gone yet, and I still do what I can, probably more than some people do in free states because they dont see the need. I sent out a half dozen NRA memberships this year, including one for my 14 year old neighbor. Along with taking him shooting, getting him, and his family, into the NRA now will create life long 2A voters, well after I am gone (I hope). That is my greatest contribution in my opinion. We all only get one vote, so the more of "us" there are, the better.

The fight in 'rights denied' states will set the tone and the baseline for the rest of the country. I think that fact is overlooked when it comes to the importance of groups like CGF. When courts all over the counrty look to the minimum standard of the 2A, they will look to how states like this one have infringed on our rights and how they have been pushed back to set the median. California seems to be leading from behind.

javalos
02-13-2012, 9:07 AM
Only in California

OleCuss
02-13-2012, 9:39 AM
Great arguments, none of them are enough to justify staying to my dependants. We all do what we think is best. My unborn children will not be raised here, period.
.
.
.

What you have done and will do are appreciated. The state will be the poorer for your absence, but family matters a lot/hugely.

Wherryj
02-13-2012, 11:47 AM
Oi.

People v SOLOMON ABYABWI GABRIEL, B228244
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA048498)

Opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B228244.PDF
(Fixed link - thanks, blakdawg! I really did download it...)



See also SFGate - http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2012/02/10/owning-assault-gun-growing-pot-are-immoral-court-says/?gta=commentlistpos#commentlistpos

h/t Alphecca (http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1128)

Does the mere possession of an oven demonstrate clear evidence that the owner intends to open a concentration camp?

It isn't the misuse of an item that defines the item's use. It is the common and intended use that does so. Our military has been in possession of actual assault rifles (and far more serious hardware). In nearly all cases, there have been no immoral uses. Many of the posters on this forum own the arbitrarily defined "assault weapon", yet in nearly all cases the weapon itself hasn't been used to commit an atrocity.

I'm not following the reasoning. This statement would concern me enough if it came from just any ordinary member of society.

CCWFacts
02-13-2012, 5:03 PM
Crimes involve moral turpitude when they reveal dishonesty, a “„general readiness to do evil,‟”

Let me see if I understand what he's saying here:


I own a registered AW
This means that I informed myself about the law
I completed the legal requirements (including updating my records when I move)
I'm fully informed about the ridiculous transportation restrictions on AWs and I comply with them
I've had extensive professional training in the use of my AW
I've never been arrested or misused a firearm


And he's saying that, after all that, I've shown a "general readiness to do evil", and I have "moral turpitude".

Wow, thanks for taking such a level-headed and reasonable approach to things, your honor.

Brian S
02-13-2012, 7:24 PM
"...the mere possession of such a weapon demonstrates a „“general readiness to do evil.”

I wonder what the judge thinks about our government possessing nuclear weapons. Is our country in readiness to do evil too? I'm sure a few countries think we are.

If AWs are evil...what does that say about the people who designed and manufactured them? How about the BATF who approved them for general sale? What about the gun dealer who profited from the sale and the state that collected the sales tax?

How does mandating registration make them any less evil? If law makers allowed people to keep them, they must be part of the evil conspiracy. The majority of other states have little or no restrictions on them so obviously the evil is more widespread than the judge ever thought.

SilverTauron
02-13-2012, 8:03 PM
The fight in 'rights denied' states will set the tone and the baseline for the rest of the country. I think that fact is overlooked when it comes to the importance of groups like CGF. When courts all over the counrty look to the minimum standard of the 2A, they will look to how states like this one have infringed on our rights and how they have been pushed back to set the median. California seems to be leading from behind.

Something Rep. Dan Lundgren said about California's perspective on HR 822 some months ago sticks with me to this moment. He stated on the House floor that California's gun laws were too liberal, and that if said bill passed as law the California legislature would be 'forced' to rescind CCW from the laws entirely.He stated on CSPAN live for all to hear that California follows Illinois as a 'sister state' in common sense gun laws, and would follow Illinois' brave and trend setting laws on gun violence.

With that kind of hubris, is it so hard to understand why someone in a different state would think you guys are beyond NUTS for living under the rule of these autocrats?


An attitude many gun owners in the Free-er states have is that 'what happens in California or New Jersey stays in California, so its not my problem'. Most people with that attitude have always been around firearms and relatively unrestricted access to them,and thus consider anyone who would willingly live in a place that infringes so heavily on their rights to be foolish.

To understand that attitude, the following is in order.

I grew up in a place that in spirit is identical to many parts of California, and in measurable ways Chicago is worse than any place in California. I know what its like to see the politicians use the latest shooting as an excuse to tighten the noose around what remnants exist of the civilians' rights. I know what it is like to have to study firearms law like a practicing attorney just to stay out of jail. After having escaped such a place, I completely understand why someone would say "pack up".

The first time I walked into a South Dakota gun store and tried on an AR15 rifle-a weapon that would be illegal for me to touch under Illinois law without a permit and a smaller magazine-I swore to never go back to that corrupt state or any with like policies. The first time you walk into an FFL and aren't treated like a criminal, but like a citizen with dignity and the right to determine your own way, well, its a way of thinking that I wouldn't dare yield.


It is a beautiful thing to be able to put your rifles, pistols, and ammo in the trunk or pickup bed for a day at the range without being frightened of going to jail. There's a peace of mind for being able to go to and fro with your weapons without freaking out because according to Plaintiff vs Leftist Government Entity what you're doing is technically legal, but if you get stopped on Tuesday in the wrong city you'll still get arrested.

There is something to be said for knowing that even though you might get stopped by the police, they won't freak out because you are armed.

The mental peace of mind to be able to walk into a gun store, see a nice pistol, and plunk down your cash and leave in the same hour with that gun knowing that you won't be on some watch list or involved with an ATF investigation because said pistol wasn't on a government mandated purchase list.

Many of you on this board know what I speak of . Many sadly do not. You all are absolutely right in stating that just because one leaves the area of oppression, it does nothing to stop the oppression.I am stating that just because a citizen is fed up with being oppressed, he should not be made to feel like a leper because he isn't staying put to be subjugated. Life is too short to live in fear of the G-man because his minions and electorate supporters think you and your AR-15 are 'morally questionable'.

I assure you all, my presence in Chicago and my vote will count not an ant's sneeze towards shutting down the Democrat Machine and its agenda of citizen subjugation. All I would be in that place is another disarmed victim waiting to happen, and I refuse to live that way. If that counts as cowardice, so be it. I took an oath to defend the Constitution of these United States, and as a veteran I refuse to reside in territory that spits on it as public policy.

If Rep. Lundgren is any sign of the attitudes of your state government ,to use the battlefield analogy the CGN and 2nd Amendment Foundation all are the 300 Spartan troops in the 'Hot Gates' facing a Persian Army of liberal voters and the assorted Xerxes-type political figures intent on making slaves of you all. I won't be joining you guys in the shadow of the arrows, but ill send you guys a quiver or too when I can.

oaklander
02-14-2012, 12:00 AM
Dude, I hear what you are saying. And that's one thing that I am missing. I am somewhat estranged from my birth family right now. I guess I just got too deep into all of this, and just didn't reach out like I should have.

This stuff DOES take a toll. And I am not complaining. WE ALL do this stuff because we love the work, but I just got done communicating with someone who lost what would have been a life savings, pursuing our rights.

That someone would think that WE are the bad ones here? That is sickening. We are the right ones. The rights ones. And the ones who are right. I have never seen a more clear moral thing in my life, our self-defense rights.

And you were a part of it, and for that, you are to be commended.

Great arguments, none of them are enough to justify staying to my dependants. We all do what we think is best. My unborn children will not be raised here, period.

I'll send some cash back over there wire when I get settled. Of course we arent gone yet, and I still do what I can, probably more than some people do in free states because they dont see the need. I sent out a half dozen NRA memberships this year, including one for my 14 year old neighbor. Along with taking him shooting, getting him, and his family, into the NRA now will create life long 2A voters, well after I am gone (I hope). That is my greatest contribution in my opinion. We all only get one vote, so the more of "us" there are, the better.

The fight in 'rights denied' states will set the tone and the baseline for the rest of the country. I think that fact is overlooked when it comes to the importance of groups like CGF. When courts all over the counrty look to the minimum standard of the 2A, they will look to how states like this one have infringed on our rights and how they have been pushed back to set the median. California seems to be leading from behind.

odysseus
02-14-2012, 12:20 AM
We thus conclude that under Castro’s least adjudicated elements test, the mere possession of such a weapon demonstrates a „“general readiness to do evil.”

Ugh. Sometimes I just get so sick to the stomach of the type of jurisprudence sitting on the bench in so many courts in California. The "mere possession"? No mens rea?

I know people are saying "they mean illegal assault weapon" but I don't feel that though technically that is right since so many of us have RAWs in this State, that this appellate judge means that. It is so thick in double-speak. "Such a weapon" and "general readiness" seem to dictate form rather than ownership.

blakdawg
02-28-2012, 12:58 PM
FYI, a petition for rehearing in this case was filed and granted, the opinion previously certified for publication has been vacated. See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1959505&div=2&doc_no=B228244 for full details.

stix213
02-28-2012, 1:44 PM
FYI, a petition for rehearing in this case was filed and granted, the opinion previously certified for publication has been vacated. See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1959505&div=2&doc_no=B228244 for full details.

Does that mean the finding that possession of a specific gun is immoral is gone?

Flopper
02-28-2012, 2:36 PM
FYI, a petition for rehearing in this case was filed and granted, the opinion previously certified for publication has been vacated. See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1959505&div=2&doc_no=B228244 for full details.

Whoa, isn't this kind of huge??

Hopi
02-28-2012, 2:42 PM
New sig.....thanks Gene!

blakdawg
02-28-2012, 3:28 PM
Does that mean the finding that possession of a specific gun is immoral is gone?

Whoa, isn't this kind of huge??

At the moment, it's as if the original opinion had never been issued. This is relatively uncommon - I don't have the statistics easily at hand.

Whether or not it's really a big deal depends, IMHO, on what the final outcome is - if they want to make a minor correction, they'll issue a correcting opinion, not vacate the opinion and grant rehearing.

I think it's a good sign for the 2A and for the defendant, but we'll know more if/when someone gets a copy of the petition for rehearing, the briefs on rehearing, or the new opinion.

Southwest Chuck
02-28-2012, 3:44 PM
At the moment, it's as if the original opinion had never been issued. This is relatively uncommon - I don't have the statistics easily at hand.

Whether or not it's really a big deal depends, IMHO, on what the final outcome is - if they want to make a minor correction, they'll issue a correcting opinion, not vacate the opinion and grant rehearing.

I think it's a good sign for the 2A and for the defendant, but we'll know more if/when someone gets a copy of the petition for rehearing, the briefs on rehearing, or the new opinion.

Great News!

Maybe the title should be altered and/or added to ... to read something like
" Decision Vacated-Rehearing Granted! " ????

Librarian? :)