PDA

View Full Version : MY list of priorities for reform in CA -- yours may differ


littlejake
03-10-2012, 8:33 AM
I see the CGF doing some great work; and I am in support. There seems to be a laser beam focus on CCW reform. Well, I wanted to express my priorities. Naturally I expect others to have different priorities; and I respect that.

1) Defeat the HG Roster.
2) Eliminated 10 day wait; use NICS instant check.
3) Eliminate 1 HG in 30 days.
4) DROS fees unreasonable restriction on 2A -- fund DOJ out of the General Fund.
5) Assert the state's preemption and bar lower tier government restrictions on arms and ammo.
6) Repeal State GFSZ -- barred on campus only.
7) Permit unfettered use of the C&R license as originally intended under the GCA of 1968
8) Stop rifle registration. (maybe this should be higher up)
9) Eliminate ban on new >10 round magazines.
10) Align short rifle and SG definitions with NFA.
11) Align prohibited person with federal definitions
12) Repeal AW ban
.
.
.
N) CA a Shall Issue State.

SanPedroShooter
03-10-2012, 8:42 AM
Protected carry outside the home is the 'new frontier' after Heller and Mcdonald. It seems like CGF is running priorities parallel to the national plan (courtesy of SAF and Gura).

Your first three are important, but I would rather carry my 'not unsafe' gun in public for defense than have my off roster gun locked up at home (where it does me no good. The best gun is the one on you when you need it). Everything else seems not as important compared to defending life and property, even if I have limited gun choices and have to wait ten days to get it. If I can carry for defense, arbitrary injustices like the ten round magazine and AW ban seem to take a backseat.

littlejake
03-10-2012, 9:06 AM
Protected carry outside the home is the 'new frontier' after Heller and Mcdonald. It seems like CGF is running priorities parallel to the national plan (courtesy of SAF and Gura).

Your first three are important, but I would rather carry my 'not unsafe' gun in public for defense than have my off roster gun locked up at home (where it does me no good. The best gun is the one on you when you need it). Everything else seems not as important compared to defending life and property, even if I have limited gun choices and have to wait ten days to get it. If I can carry for defense, arbitrary injustices like the ten round magazine and AW ban seem to take a backseat.

I respect your opinion; and see the logic behind your position. Well stated. :D

G60
03-10-2012, 9:17 AM
Do you already have your LTC?

LTC issuance, unlike many of the other reforms placed lower on the triage, is a life or death matter, and rightfully should be the #1 priority in CA and nationwide.

LTC issuance and fighting against legislation designed to "price people out" of defending their lives (exorbitant fees for everything,) should be near the top in our list of priorities.

G60
03-10-2012, 9:21 AM
To add, there's is a strategy behind everything the CGF does, and part of every good strategy is to attack the right things at the right time.

Some things that MAY be more important so to speak may have to wait until the time is right.

SanPedroShooter
03-10-2012, 9:25 AM
I also see a maglock on my AK or AR as unsafe and annoying, my lack of adequate defense as life threatening. Or the fact my wife is disarmed and alone at 4:30 am in her work parking lot. What I wouldnt give for her to have a 'not unsafe' handgun and a ten round magazine, instead of a 2.5 oz max (grrrr) can of pepper spray and a cell phone....

ccmc
03-10-2012, 10:01 AM
The only thing that matters to me as a non-resident is that I have a way to legally carry in California when/if I visit. That's impossible now as the state recognizes no other state LTCs, and refuses to accept applications for a California LTC from non-residents.

littlejake
03-10-2012, 10:07 AM
Do you already have your LTC?

No I do not. It would likely have been a higher priority for me when I was a younger man. As I have gotten older, carrying has taken a lower priority. Our personal priorities evolve over time; and I would prefer to have unfettered access to arms of my choice over having an LTC.

The pillar of my 2A beliefs is that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute -- it existed before there was a Constitution -- and the 2A is an absolute prohibition of government limitation of that Right at ALL levels of government.

To add, there's is a strategy behind everything the CGF does, and part of every good strategy is to attack the right things at the right time. Some things that MAY be more important so to speak may have to wait until the time is right.

I understand CGF has a strategy; and I am grateful for their efforts. IMO, they're the best thing going as far as reforming CA laws.

The only thing that matters to me as a non-resident is that I have a way to legally carry in California when/if I visit. That's impossible now as the state recognizes no other state LTCs, and refuses to accept applications for a California LTC from non-residents.

Noted. I should have put carry reciprocity in the list.

mag360
03-10-2012, 10:22 AM
I respectfully disagree with your list.

I think #1 is securing bear outside home for all.

2. For me, is a suppressor.

3. AW features ban requiring bb or featureless.

4. Evrything else like waiting periods, mag capacity, and the roster

littlejake
03-10-2012, 10:32 AM
I respectfully disagree with your list.

I think #1 is securing bear outside home for all.

2. For me, is a suppressor.

3. AW features ban requiring bb or featureless.

4. Evrything else like waiting periods, mag capacity, and the roster

Noted -- and I respect your opinion.

JeepsRcool
03-10-2012, 10:32 AM
So you want to be able to buy any handgun made and walk out of the store with it, while using standard cap magazines, BEFORE you can get a CCW?
Sense you don't make...... :facepalm:
I have more guns then I can really afford, so none of your preferred reforms would help me protect myself, so I cant really follow how you have arrived at your preferences.....

MY List

1) Unfettered CCW licensing( I would prefer Constitutional carry but yeah right)
.
.
.
.
N) All other infringing laws, basically ALL gun laws.....

Tarn_Helm
03-10-2012, 10:36 AM
I see the CGF doing some great work; and I am in support. There seems to be a laser beam focus on CCW reform. Well, I wanted to express my priorities. Naturally I expect others to have different priorities; and I respect that.

1) Defeat the HG Roster.
2) Eliminated 10 day wait; use NICS instant check.
3) Eliminate 1 HG in 30 days.
4) DROS fees unreasonable restriction on 2A -- fund DOJ out of the General Fund.
5) Assert the state's preemption and bar lower tier government restrictions on arms and ammo.
6) Repeal State GFSZ -- barred on campus only.
7) Permit unfettered use of the C&R license as originally intended under the GCA of 1968
8) Stop rifle registration. (maybe this should be higher up)
9) Eliminate ban on new >10 round magazines.
10) Align short rifle and SG definitions with NFA.
11) Align prohibited person with federal definitions
12) Repeal AW ban
.
.
.
N) CA a Shall Issue State.

You espouse irrelevant and inconsequential lame priorities.

Unleashing shall-issue LTC/CCW on the state of CA will have the effect of igniting confidence in, and momentum for, all these little side issues.

Ordinary, non-2AM folks will get sucked into the realm of fascination with gun law only after they have a practical need to do so: SHALL-ISSUE LTC/CCW.

Your priorities will guarantee that your little sideshow preferences will cause them to remain a small-time legal sideshow.

Good luck with that.

Think about the importance of getting shall-issue LTC/CCW in these terms: What could be more important with regard to automobiles than having the government recognize your right to wear a seatbelt?

The right to wear a seatbelt (and then actually wearing it) is a PROTECTIVE measure in case of a catastrophic event.

The right to wear a loaded concealed firearm is a PROTECTIVE measure in case of a catastrophic event.

You want to prioritize that below the right to deal in antique cars?

Makes you and us (us=the Second Amendment movement in this state) look like a bunch of benighted fools.

You should really consider keeping your counterproductive eccentricities to yourself, as a personal favor to me.

Thank you.
:facepalm:

NotEnufGarage
03-10-2012, 10:51 AM
I'll leave it to "those in the know" to exercise their strategy in the order that makes the most sense.

That said, with SSE the roster is effectively neutered. With the BB the AWB is neutered. Shall issue is proceeding, albeit slowly in some counties. I'd like to have 30rd mags for my AR, but I can live without them for now. I have enough rifles for now, but might buy a receiver or two in the next 9 months just to beat registration.

Probably my highest priority items would be to eliminate the 10 day wait, at least for anyone who already has a registered handgun, GFSZ (since I live so close to a school) and the mag restrictions.

SASchnell
03-10-2012, 10:54 AM
You should really consider keeping your counterproductive eccentricities to yourself, as a personal favor to me.

Maybe you should lighten up. This is a discussion forum not your just your soapbox. I enjoy reading all points of view including yours.

Scott


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

NotEnufGarage
03-10-2012, 10:58 AM
You should really consider keeping your counterproductive eccentricities to yourself, as a personal favor to me.

Maybe you should lighten up. This is a discussion forum not your just your soapbox. I enjoy reading all points of view including yours.

Scott


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I don't know who that comment is directed at...

If you're going to challenge something that someone else has posted, you really should quote their post so that everyone else knows who it is directed at.

See the little button that says "Quote" at the bottom of each post.

Tarn_Helm
03-10-2012, 11:16 AM
You should really consider keeping your counterproductive eccentricities to yourself, as a personal favor to me.

Maybe you should lighten up. This is a discussion forum not your just your soapbox. I enjoy reading all points of view including yours.

Scott

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

"Lighten up?"

The reason why Californians have no shall-issue LTC/CCW is that too many of us have "lightened up" and decided that shall-issue LTC/CCW is not the top priority.

Anyone is free to ignore what I say, including the OP, who asked for the opinion of everyone.

If you don't want to know, DON'T ASK.
I will not lighten up.
:mad:

littlejake
03-10-2012, 11:23 AM
Remember, these are opinions. Let us treat each other with respect.

I fully expected that there would be differing opinions. I am expressing mine -- not imposing them upon the rest of you.

It is government that has imposed their will upon you.

goodlookin1
03-10-2012, 11:49 AM
The pillar of my 2A beliefs is that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute -- it existed before there was a Constitution -- and the 2A is an absolute prohibition of government limitation of that Right at ALL levels of government.

littlejake FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Bhobbs
03-10-2012, 11:59 AM
1. LTC
2. AWB repeal
3. Safe hand gun roster taken down.
4. Mag Capacity ban repealed
5. .50 BMG rifle ban repealed.

goodlookin1
03-10-2012, 12:07 PM
It should be obvious that priorities will be different from person to person. For someone (like me) who lives in a county that considers self defense to be good cause for issuance of a LTC, Shall Issue is not going to be a high priority for that person. I think it is important for equal treatment reasons, but for me PERSONALLY, it would not benefit me. I would obviously rather see the AW ban fall, then go after NFA rights....instead of getting Shall Issue LTC.

But I try not to focus on such matters, and I do want to see others in the state have the same ability as me to choose to protect themselves and get a LTC. The way I see it, the more the "gun culture" pervades our society, the more it will become accepted, then embraced, then "normal. That's when the dominoes begin to fall on the other issues as well.

Winning hearts and minds, not just court cases.

ap3572001
03-10-2012, 12:54 PM
I see the CGF doing some great work; and I am in support. There seems to be a laser beam focus on CCW reform. Well, I wanted to express my priorities. Naturally I expect others to have different priorities; and I respect that.

1) Defeat the HG Roster.
2) Eliminated 10 day wait; use NICS instant check.
3) Eliminate 1 HG in 30 days.
4) DROS fees unreasonable restriction on 2A -- fund DOJ out of the General Fund.
5) Assert the state's preemption and bar lower tier government restrictions on arms and ammo.
6) Repeal State GFSZ -- barred on campus only.
7) Permit unfettered use of the C&R license as originally intended under the GCA of 1968
8) Stop rifle registration. (maybe this should be higher up)
9) Eliminate ban on new >10 round magazines.
10) Align short rifle and SG definitions with NFA.
11) Align prohibited person with federal definitions
12) Repeal AW ban
.
.
.
N) CA a Shall Issue State.

A TRUE, Shall Issue CCW is at VERY top of the list of people I know.

To be able to buy ANY decent carry gun at Your local shop, a box of JHP's, good holster and legally carry it concealed is a lot more important than BB's, Magazines,rifle registration , AK's,AW's etc.

hoffmang
03-10-2012, 12:57 PM
There seems to be a laser beam focus on CCW reform.

I'm pulling your list out of your quote so it's clearer what my responses are:

1) Defeat the HG Roster.

It was the first case we filed after Nordyke incorporated. See Peņa v. Cid which is stayed pending Nordyke.

2) Eliminated 10 day wait; use NICS instant check.

Case filed Christmas eve 2011. See Silvester v. Harris.

3) Eliminate 1 HG in 30 days.

We worry we'd lose this in California and that we can't easily create a circuit split on it. Part of solving #2 is making the COE actually useful and the COE exempts you with a C&R license.

4) DROS fees unreasonable restriction on 2A -- fund DOJ out of the General Fund.

We're not doing this only because NRA and CRPA-F have already filed this case which we certainly support.

5) Assert the state's preemption and bar lower tier government restrictions on arms and ammo.

We're doing exactly that in CGF v. San Mateo County stating that their ban on all guns in parks doesn't have an exception for carry licenses required by the Government Code. Reading the Government Code will show you that this is not as wide a preemption as one might hope. Also note that NRA and CRPA-F are doing something along these lines in SF with Jackson. Doubling up on that effort isn't of much value there.

6) Repeal State GFSZ -- barred on campus only.

No politically likely to happen in the next 10 years.

7) Permit unfettered use of the C&R license as originally intended under the GCA of 1968

Especially starting 2014, we see this as important.

8) Stop rifle registration. (maybe this should be higher up)

We need resolution in Heller II and it has to be much closer to 1/1/2014 for the case to be ripe.

9) Eliminate ban on new >10 round magazines.

We have a case ready, willing, and able. It's a very novel theory. It would have been filed already but for some directly relevant activity on the Supreme Court Docket. Once that activity is completed we'll assess that outcome and likely file.

10) Align short rifle and SG definitions with NFA.

On the radar but I doubt we'll do that here in California. Texas and DC are better.

11) Align prohibited person with federal definitions

Politically and judicially unlikely in California.

12) Repeal AW ban

See Haynie v. Pleasanton.

N) CA a Shall Issue State.[/QUOTE]

And this is where I disagree with you. If we get women the right to carry we will drive a stake through the last dying gasps of the gun control movement. 1,000,000 carry licensees in California will start to finally inexorably turn the politics in California to a place where some of my "can't happen here's" above change to can happen here.

You can read all the litigation that's publicly disclosed here: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Litigation_Past_and_Present

-Gene

Gray Peterson
03-10-2012, 1:10 PM
Lack of carry ability kills, rapes, and maims people. We are addressing the AW issue in numerous lawsuits on the federal level. However, the sheer stupidity of the sheriffs requires numerous litigation paths in the state court for carry issues, which we can't do the other issues like AW.

1 million carry license holders is a fearsome voting bloc. Plus you save the lives of innocent people. 70 percent of denied applicants are victims of violent crime within 2 years....

IVC
03-10-2012, 1:20 PM
It would likely have been a higher priority for me when I was a younger man. As I have gotten older, carrying has taken a lower priority. Our personal priorities evolve over time; and I would prefer to have unfettered access to arms of my choice over having an LTC.

I would venture to say you are looking at this from an incorrect angle. The first 12 points you make are all about specific *tools* and as such are relatively insignificant compared to the issue LTC addresses, which is recognizing the second half of the 2A as in bear arms.

Once the full 2A is recognized, the first 12 points will be a simple corollary of that recognition. In free states, those points are moot even today. You don't have to want to carry or have any intention of carrying (3-5% of all that can actually do) to have LTC as priority number one.

Tarn_Helm
03-10-2012, 1:24 PM
Lack of carry ability kills, rapes, and maims people. We are addressing the AW issue in numerous lawsuits on the federal level. However, the sheer stupidity of the sheriffs requires numerous litigation paths in the state court for carry issues, which we can't do the other issues like AW.

1 million carry license holders is a fearsome voting bloc. Plus you save the lives of innocent people. 70 percent of denied applicants are victims of violent crime within 2 years....

I agree with you 100%, Mr. Peterson.

I should not have to beg the government for the right to wear a gun any more than I should have to beg for the right to wear a seatbelt--both are protective devices--but the possesion and wearing of one of them is constitutionally protected!!!--the one that I am not allowed to wear!!! INSANE!!!

If an explicitly enumerated, constitutionally protected right can be trampled and/or ignored and/or regulated into meaninglessness, then all other constitutionally protected but unenumerated rights are equally in danger.

Unfortunately, the protective value of carrying a concealed loaded firearm for purposes of lawful self-defense is recognized for an LEO but not for me.

LEO's are, arguably at less daily risk of victimhood than I am, yet I am disarmed by law!

Moreover, I am already a victim of 422 PC and still do not "qualify" for CCW/LTC according to LASD criteria or the criteria of my CLEO.

We need CCW/LTC.

We might want other stuff (C&R changes, elimination of roster & 1 gun a month, etc.).

But we need CCW/LTC.

I am not sure how to else to communicate to people here the world of difference between a need and a want!
:beatdeadhorse5::rant:

littlejake
03-10-2012, 1:29 PM
I'm pulling your list out of your quote so it's clearer what my responses are:

1) Defeat the HG Roster.

It was the first case we filed after Nordyke incorporated. See Peņa v. Cid which is stayed pending Nordyke.

2) Eliminated 10 day wait; use NICS instant check.

Case filed Christmas eve 2011. See Silvester v. Harris.

3) Eliminate 1 HG in 30 days.

We worry we'd lose this in California and that we can't easily create a circuit split on it. Part of solving #2 is making the COE actually useful and the COE exempts you with a C&R license.

4) DROS fees unreasonable restriction on 2A -- fund DOJ out of the General Fund.

We're not doing this only because NRA and CRPA-F have already filed this case which we certainly support.

5) Assert the state's preemption and bar lower tier government restrictions on arms and ammo.

We're doing exactly that in CGF v. San Mateo County stating that their ban on all guns in parks doesn't have an exception for carry licenses required by the Government Code. Reading the Government Code will show you that this is not as wide a preemption as one might hope. Also note that NRA and CRPA-F are doing something along these lines in SF with Jackson. Doubling up on that effort isn't of much value there.

6) Repeal State GFSZ -- barred on campus only.

No politically likely to happen in the next 10 years.

7) Permit unfettered use of the C&R license as originally intended under the GCA of 1968

Especially starting 2014, we see this as important.

8) Stop rifle registration. (maybe this should be higher up)

We need resolution in Heller II and it has to be much closer to 1/1/2014 for the case to be ripe.

9) Eliminate ban on new >10 round magazines.

We have a case ready, willing, and able. It's a very novel theory. It would have been filed already but for some directly relevant activity on the Supreme Court Docket. Once that activity is completed we'll assess that outcome and likely file.

10) Align short rifle and SG definitions with NFA.

On the radar but I doubt we'll do that here in California. Texas and DC are better.

11) Align prohibited person with federal definitions

Politically and judicially unlikely in California.

12) Repeal AW ban

See Haynie v. Pleasanton.

N) CA a Shall Issue State.

And this is where I disagree with you. If we get women the right to carry we will drive a stake through the last dying gasps of the gun control movement. 1,000,000 carry licensees in California will start to finally inexorably turn the politics in California to a place where some of my "can't happen here's" above change to can happen here.

You can read all the litigation that's publicly disclosed here: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Litigation_Past_and_Present

-Gene[/QUOTE]

Gene:

Thank you for your detailed response. I really appreciate it. I see your logic as to the last point -- something I hadn't considered. Glad to see there is a plan!

Also, someone mentioned Constitutional Carry. I assume that's a given right to carry without an LTC. That's something I would really like to see. Didn't AZ go to that?

If the LASD were to have a policy that they would approve all applications for CCW permits -- I still would not want one under their path to get one.

Kindest regards,

Jake

ap3572001
03-10-2012, 1:36 PM
Lack of carry ability kills, rapes, and maims people. We are addressing the AW issue in numerous lawsuits on the federal level. However, the sheer stupidity of the sheriffs requires numerous litigation paths in the state court for carry issues, which we can't do the other issues like AW.

1 million carry license holders is a fearsome voting bloc. Plus you save the lives of innocent people. 70 percent of denied applicants are victims of violent crime within 2 years....

Agree. +1!

Give people a RIGHT to carry concealed.

A good, old Smith and Wesson model 10 or a 1911 on Your hip , loaded and concelaed will alow You exersise Your constitutional rights and a right of self defense a lot better than all the AW's at home in the safe.

Tarn_Helm
03-10-2012, 1:45 PM
No I do not. It would likely have been a higher priority for me when I was a younger man. As I have gotten older, carrying has taken a lower priority. Our personal priorities evolve over time; and I would prefer to have unfettered access to arms of my choice over having an LTC.

The pillar of my 2A beliefs is that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute -- it existed before there was a Constitution -- and the 2A is an absolute prohibition of government limitation of that Right at ALL levels of government. . . . (edited by me)

Your priorities are so impractical and illogical that my head spins every time I read the above statements.

Let me get this straight.

Back when you were, in all probability, younger, stronger, had better reflexes, and thus were probably better able to defend yourself if physically attacked by an aggressor who was either unarmed or armed, you would have wanted an LTC/CCW more.

Now that you are, in all probability, older, weaker, have less effective reflexes, and thus are probably less able to defend yourself if physically attacked by an aggressor who is either unarmed or armed, you want an LTC/CCW less than you would have when you were younger. (By the way, this suggests me that you merely would have wanted it for some immature macho value and not wanted it for daily use as a protective tool, a protective device like a seatbelt.)

O.k.

You and I exist in different physical realities. My discussion with you about the issue of practicality is over.

Logic: "The pillar of my 2A beliefs is that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute -- it existed before there was a Constitution -- and the 2A is an absolute prohibition of government limitation of that Right at ALL levels of government."

So you are saying, if I may paraphrase: "Because the right is absolute and antedates the U.S. Constitution, being able to exercise the right for daily, lawful self-defense is less important than the right to buy and sell certain guns (and other even less important rights also mentioned)."

In terms of logical priority, the most permissive expression of the right has to be the one that takes the higher priority since it serves as the legal and logcial basis of incidental activities such as buying and selling. That is like saying, "I prefer the right to buy and sell cars over the right to drive them" or "I prefer the right to buy and sell seatbelts over the right to wear them every day whenever I drive a car."

Again, you and I do not exist in a logical universe which is arranged according to principles that are even remotely compatible.

You prioritize the weaker principle over the stronger and the less useful acts (buying and selling) over the most useful (daily carry for lawful self-defense).

Have a nice day.

In whatever universe you inhabit.

Sorry, pal.

I just don't get any of your reasoning.
:facepalm:

Connor P Price
03-10-2012, 1:50 PM
Lack of carry ability kills, rapes, and maims people. We are addressing the AW issue in numerous lawsuits on the federal level. However, the sheer stupidity of the sheriffs requires numerous litigation paths in the state court for carry issues, which we can't do the other issues like AW.

1 million carry license holders is a fearsome voting bloc. Plus you save the lives of innocent people. 70 percent of denied applicants are victims of violent crime within 2 years....

Gray, can you provide the source for this info? It would prove incredibly useful in settling a discussion I had the other day.

speedrrracer
03-10-2012, 1:54 PM
Everyone has a right to their opinion, God Bless Ya, but I have a hard time believing that anyone who prioritizes the roster over LTC has thoroughly thought things through.

Connor P Price
03-10-2012, 2:09 PM
I see the CGF doing some great work; and I am in support. There seems to be a laser beam focus on CCW reform. Well, I wanted to express my priorities. Naturally I expect others to have different priorities; and I respect that.

1) Defeat the HG Roster.
2) Eliminated 10 day wait; use NICS instant check.
3) Eliminate 1 HG in 30 days.
4) DROS fees unreasonable restriction on 2A -- fund DOJ out of the General Fund.
5) Assert the state's preemption and bar lower tier government restrictions on arms and ammo.
6) Repeal State GFSZ -- barred on campus only.
7) Permit unfettered use of the C&R license as originally intended under the GCA of 1968
8) Stop rifle registration. (maybe this should be higher up)
9) Eliminate ban on new >10 round magazines.
10) Align short rifle and SG definitions with NFA.
11) Align prohibited person with federal definitions
12) Repeal AW ban
.
.
.
N) CA a Shall Issue State.

Let me start by saying that I really appreciate your respect for everyone's contrary opinions, its not something we see enough of. I certainly respect yours as well, although I disagree on many. Since Gene went one by one through the issues, I won't bother doing the same.

By my count there are 7 of your twelve priorities that are either in the works by competent attorneys or pretty much invalidated by work arounds. I'd say that's pretty darn good. On the remainder, while I agree that they are important, they aren't necessarily strategically wise.

One thing worth noting, #6 repealing the state GFSZ doesn't do anything for us. The Federal GFSZ would still be in effect which is actually more restrictive, so I simply can't see that one as a priority. It would make more sense to me to attack the more restrictive federal version and then import that decision to CA as a matter of legal strategy.

With regard to #8 stopping rifle registration, I would have agreed that its incredibly important before Heller and Mcdonald. The big concern with registration is that it leads to confiscation, but after incorporation of the 2A as an individual rather than collective right I see confiscation as incredibly unlikely. Besides, I see confiscation efforts as the tipping point that moves us all from our soap boxes and ballot boxes to our cartridge boxes as the famous quote suggests.

There are two legally distinct places that I may become the victim of a violent crime, within my home, or outside of my home. Its already clear that I have a right to a firearm within my home no matter where I live in this country which is awesome. However we all know that the vast majority of violent crimes occur outside of the victims home so even more important as a matter of self preservation is the right to defend oneself outside of the home. This is why I view carry as the #1 priority above all others, its about self preservation, the most significant of human instincts.

OP, perhaps you can help us understand why carrying for the purpose of defense of life lands so low on your list?

dave_cg
03-10-2012, 2:18 PM
70 percent of denied applicants are victims of violent crime within 2 years....

Citation, please! I want to rub some peoples' noses in that one. That is a good piece of debate evidence.

Mikeb
03-10-2012, 2:19 PM
Note to Big Jake ... You raised your son well
Thanks
Mike

Gray Peterson
03-10-2012, 2:23 PM
Gray, can you provide the source for this info? It would prove incredibly useful in settling a discussion I had the other day.

To be perfectly fair, it's uncited.

Connor P Price
03-10-2012, 2:29 PM
To be perfectly fair, it's uncited.

Gotcha. We all remember great figures like that, but they're often tough to find again.

Scott Connors
03-10-2012, 2:44 PM
We need to make it easier for new shooters to become shooters. That means:
1. Shall-issue CHL: we've seen in other states how this creates a new class of stakeholders that are resistant to the siren call of the antis;
2. 10-day wait replaced by NICS, because making two trips is a PITA, doesn't help public safety, and will help gun show sales (and gun shows are great forums for putting out antidotes to BB propaganda);
3. AWB ended, because almost every shooter wants a modern sporting rifle;
4. Standard cap magazines made generally available, because why drive a Porsch at 30 mph?
5. DROS fees;
6. HG roster;
7. 1 HG in 30 days;
8. Bring Kali law re: C&R, SBR/SBS, prohibited persons into conformity with fed law;
9. All gun registration, be it HG or LG;
10. Sound suppressor, because...
11. .50 cal (which you really should fire with a sound suppressor because these gives a whole new meaning to the word loud ! :36:
12. Allow other NFA firearms.

Tarn_Helm
03-10-2012, 2:51 PM
We need to make it easier for new shooters to become shooters. That means:
1. Shall-issue CHL: we've seen in other states how this creates a new class of stakeholders that are resistant to the siren call of the antis . . . (edited by me)

Case in point!
:smash:

littlejake
03-10-2012, 3:01 PM
To everyone. It's been a stimulating thread. And some of you have given me good reasons why I should rethink my priorities -- and my hat is off to Gene for pointing out that CCW reform is a lynch pin in achieving all other goals.

I feel I have been fairly persuaded to rethink my priorities by being given good explanations as to why I should. And that my friends is the beauty of Calguns.

Kindest regards to all,

Jake

FullMetalJacket
03-10-2012, 3:10 PM
Of course, things should be done in the matter that best suits the overall legal strategy. And any low-hanging fruit that can be picked along the way is great, too.

My top three...

I think LTC everywhere in California is the single most important goal. Once carry is widespread, it will be too politically perilous for someone to withdraw it; it may even be impossible if such is the outcome of a SCOTUS case. Once carry is common and widespread, I agree with Gene: gun control will have a stake driven through its heart. More people will own and carry guns, and the fear-mongering of the other side will be difficult to sustain.

I'd like to see the AWB go down. If the state can arbitrarily make a bannable class of firearms, our freedoms will still be at stake. I'm surprised that the handguns listed on the AWB haven't been challenged as a consequence of Heller/McDonald. Couldn't we chip away on that score?

The magazine capacity restriction is also a pain. I guess I can't consider myself under-equipped with a 10-shot .45, but part of me would like the option of a 15-shot .40. Or a 20-shot 5.7x28. Or a 60 round .223. :D

If those three were resolved favorably, I'd be mostly content. I'd be able to have the weapons I want and carry them as needed.

Yes, I'd like SBRs/SBSs and even suppressors, but as a lifelong Californian, I've never had those as an option. In my lifetime I have been able to buy an AR-15 without a maglock, or a Glock with a 17 shot magazine. The waiting period, DROS fees, the roster, long gun registration, and one-per-month are mainly inconveniences or minor concerns; the most egregious of these--the roster--is easily circumvented. Don't get me wrong: I'd like to win these; it's just that for the most part they don't detract much from my ability to acquire guns, shoot recreationally, maintain adequate self-defense, etc.

NFA, repeal of the .50 cal ban, elimination GFSZ? These seem like longshots or politically unworkable for the time being...

VW*Mike
03-10-2012, 5:08 PM
I would like to see all of these stupid laws done away with, and the Constitution, and federal laws be what the guidline is. Not weird *** patch work of laws, odd wording meant to deny people of their rights. My top 5 would be, in no particular order,

LTC
Roster
normal cap mags
Registration gone
AWB

Flogger23m
03-10-2012, 8:26 PM
8) Stop rifle registration. (maybe this should be higher up)


I thought rifles were not registered? Or did this change? If it did how does that affect those of us who currently own rifles? And if we sell our rifles now, will we be registered as previous rifle owners?

frankrizzo
03-10-2012, 10:24 PM
1) Firearms rights restoration process for those with a 5250 hold in their past, in accordance with Federal law (NICS Improvement Amendments Act).
2) Everything else.

:(

hoffmang
03-10-2012, 11:08 PM
1) Firearms rights restoration process for those with a 5250 hold in their past, in accordance with Federal law (NICS Improvement Amendments Act).

That issue is on the list. If someone can show decent evidence that they are no longer a danger to self or others then the state no longer has any interest in taking their fundamental liberties away.

-Gene

frankrizzo
03-11-2012, 8:34 AM
That issue is on the list. If someone can show decent evidence that they are no longer a danger to self or others then the state no longer has any interest in taking their fundamental liberties away.

-Gene

I'm glad. Sometimes I feel like that one is completely under the radar compared to everything else.

I hope California agrees someday.