PDA

View Full Version : Will CA gun laws ever change?


Adog5
09-02-2007, 9:32 AM
I've been reading around and got confused on some threads. Is there a good chance that CA will change their laws in favor of guns? I heard some people mention that high-cap may soon no longer be an issue? Or are the laws going to get stiffer? Please provide any feedback and comments (don't leave out the details)

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 9:45 AM
Yes. The federal courts are likely to start placing limits on what states can do. It will take quite a few more years, but I expect that many California enactments will not pass muster and be stricken.

-Gene

Quiet
09-02-2007, 9:55 AM
If current legislation is indicative of the direction CA is going, CA gun laws will be getting worse before it gets any better.

CA guns laws may change in the future depending on how SCOTUS rules on Parker/Heller vs DC.

Depending on how it rules and the oppions that are written by the Justices, can effect various guns laws through out the country. The effect can be either good or bad, depending on what they say.

Good = 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
Bad = Even though 2nd Amendment is an individual right, gun registration & weapon bans are an acceptable application of the state's authority.
Bad = 2nd Amendment is a collective right.

chris
09-02-2007, 12:26 PM
Quiet gun laws will get worse in this state if you do not paricipate in the polictical process. many have seen first hand that this state does NOT Like us to be organized. they want us to accept the laws that they try to pass and play along. we do not. we will fight them and we WON last year. not ONE ANTI GUN bill passed last year because of members on this board. you need to come hear often and act when the wistle is blown. we can win and hopefully someday take OUR rights back from the vermin called lawmakers in sacramento.

supersonic
09-02-2007, 12:51 PM
the vermin called lawmakers in sacramento.[/QUOTE]

.........suddenly I feel so.....so.....dirty...................
S.S.:43:

Piper
09-02-2007, 12:56 PM
A united front of private citizens and the PRIVATE firearm industry is the only way to bring government to its knees. Boycotting sales and selling private arms and equipment to government employees at full retail price, is the only way to make it work. If the laws are turned in on the government, they won't last very long.

bulgron
09-02-2007, 1:45 PM
What we need is a gun rights group that is actually interested in advancing RKBA issues in Sacramento, instead of either pretending to, or trying to maintain the status quo, which is IMO what most of the CA gun rights groups are doing right now.

But I'm not expecting anything to change wrt gun rights in CA unless Parker turns into a home run for us. If it does, the next thing to do is go after the constitutionality of good cause statements and the constitutionality of AW bans. We can probably also overturn outright bans on open carry too, but only if SCOTUS agrees 100% with the D.C. Court of Appeals findings on the 2A.

They should, btw, agree with the Parker ruling. Almost all of the legal research lately has found the 2A to be an individual right, and 4/5ths of the country is operating as if it is an individual right. SCOTUS is hardly bucking cultural trends nation wide if they come down on our side of this.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 2:05 PM
They are called the CA NRA and they do an excellent job in an extremely hostile environment in Sacramento.

-Gene

bulgron
09-02-2007, 2:20 PM
They are called the CA NRA and they do an excellent job in an extremely hostile environment in Sacramento.

-Gene

4/5ths of the country has shall issue CCW laws.

In CA, we can't even get a shall-issue CCW bill introduced into a committee.

Something's wrong with this picture. At the end of the day, I think you have to hold responsible the gun rights organizations in this state for a complete failure to advance a shall issue CCW agenda in any shape or form.

You could, I suppose, argue that the fault lays with the CA gun owner. But I never even hear the CA NRA trying to convince it's members that shall issue CCW is a good and desirable thing and that CA NRA members should engage in a broad-spectrum political push for shall issue CCW.

Without the CA NRA making those arguments, we'll continue to hear from CA gun owners who only own guns for hunting, that CCW is a bad idea. They need to be educated and then brought over to the pro-CCW side of the fence.

But I don't see the CA NRA doing anything like that.

What are they doing?

Oh, right, they're trying to make high capacity magazines legal again. What good does that do me when I'm not allowed to carry in the first place? So I can shoot a little more at the range without reloading. Big whup.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 2:24 PM
Math is not your strong suit huh bulgron?

No new bad laws last year. Only two potentially bad ones left this year. One or two good laws last year. All this with an ANTI-GUN MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE...

That's the math part...

-Gene

RRangel
09-02-2007, 2:43 PM
Math is not your strong suit huh bulgron?

-Gene

No kidding. I'm actually laughing here.

CCWFacts
09-02-2007, 2:46 PM
In CA, we can't even get a shall-issue CCW bill introduced into a committee.

I too would love to see such a bill introduced. I'm sure the NRA lobbyists could, if they wanted to, at least get that introduced. The reason they haven't is that the NRA hates losing. They don't get into a fight unless they are confident they will win. This gives them a history of winning, and that history makes their opponents afraid of them. That is a powerful position for the NRA to be in and that's why they aren't introducing this.

Our job is to create an environment here where such a bill would have a fighting chance. This means we need to greatly raise CCW awareness among gun owners, so that politicians in this state (even Dem politicians) will be afraid to vote the wrong way on this issue. Once we have done that a shall-issue bill will be viable. But getting there isn't the NRA's role. It's our role, to be the feet on the street, to be in every gun shop and shooting range in the state with flyers, to get people in easy-issuance counties to start applying, to make it an issue in every sheriff and city council campaign in this state. That is fundamentally a grass-roots activity, not something for lobbyists.

Oh, right, they're trying to make high capacity magazines legal again. What good does that do me when I'm not allowed to carry in the first place? So I can shoot a little more at the range without reloading. Big whup.

Large-capacity mags is a very big deal. That's the only functional gun restriction we have in this state. Our AWB restricts the shape and appearance of guns, and restricts a few useless features like grenade launchers, but the large-cap mag ban is the only part of the law that is functional.

And btw, thousands of people in this state can and do carry. We don't need to wait for a CCW law to start getting more people to carry. Most counties in this state issue fairly easily. A few counties need to be smacked around with lawsuits.

bulgron
09-02-2007, 2:50 PM
Math is not your strong suit huh bulgron?

No new bad laws last year. Only two potentially bad ones left this year. One or two good laws last year. All this with an ANTI-GUN MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE...

That's the math part...

-Gene

I do just fine with math, Gene.

0 (that would be "zero") pro-CCW legislation introduced into the CA legislative process since, when? 1998? Am I remembering that right? NO attempts at CCW reform in nearly a decade? Seriously?

Yep, we're doing great in this state.

No wonder why so many gun owners keep moving away.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 2:55 PM
bulgron,

How do you get a majority of legislatures who are opposed to you to vote for you exactly? (There are ways but it would take people like yourself dedicating $2K a year to a defeating anti's fund.)

Ohio is an excellent example. There they had a state constitutional right to keep and bear arms and an anti-gun legislature and governor. NRA and state activists were able to use the judiciary to force the legislature to normalize CCW. CA has no state constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

-Gene

bulgron
09-02-2007, 3:49 PM
bulgron,

How do you get a majority of legislatures who are opposed to you to vote for you exactly? (There are ways but it would take people like yourself dedicating $2K a year to a defeating anti's fund.)

Look around the country, Gene. To my knowledge, all of the shall-issue CCW legislation took multiple sessions to implement. It required a years-long, determined push by the pro-gun community to get those laws passed. It took failure after failure after failure in a hostile legislative environment before shall issue came to those states.

They started by introducing the legislation into committee. It gets shot down but, more importantly, it starts a dialog. The gun community starts to look at it, to talk about it, and finally to start to vote based on that issue instead of, say, saving the california condor.

Eventually antis get voted out and pros get voted in. Fence straddlers and weak antis begin to notice that failure to support shall-issue is a losing thing come election time. So they come over to our side.

In the mean time, the debate gets louder, gets out into the public so that people can see that shall-issue is the law in the rest of the country, that it works, that it's a good idea, and that they should also vote for politicians that support shall-issue CCW.

But it all takes time. A long time. And a lot of failures before it finally succeeds.

Shall-issue CCW will come to California no earlier than 10 years from the first time it is shot down in committee. Count on it.

CCWFacts
09-02-2007, 4:08 PM
You are correct in that. In gun-crazy Texas, it took them half a dozen tries, finally needing to replace the governor, before they could get it passed. California needs to start. Having a bill in play creates the debate and creates momentum.

I understand the NRA "we don't like to lose" position but maybe this is a case where it needs to happen several times over the years before we finally win.

One big factor is that CCW is the winning side. The rest of the country has already gone. There are only about half a dozen states left that are truly CCW-hostile, and California is one of them.

I do agree that judicial help may be more expedient in winning in this state. There could be some great fallout from Heller over the next couple of years. There could also be some suits against sheriffs here to improve things.

bulgron
09-02-2007, 4:21 PM
I understand the NRA "we don't like to lose" position but maybe this is a case where it needs to happen several times over the years before we finally win.


And so I'll say it again, maybe what we need is a gun-rights organization that exists solely for the purpose of advancing shall-issue CCW, and other self-defense issues, in the state of CA. I'd rather the NRA did it, but since they don't seem to have the stomach for all the early losses in this fight, maybe we need to go around them.

This isn't to detract from the NRA's other successes, btw. It's just that they seem to have no interest in this issue. So it looks like we're stuck with having to find (or create) another organization that does have an interest in this issue.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 4:21 PM
Gents,

A little reality goes a long way. Name me a state with an assault weapons ban in place and shall issue CCW?

Anyone?

-Gene

CCWFacts
09-02-2007, 4:30 PM
A little reality goes a long way. Name me a state with an assault weapons ban in place and shall issue CCW?

I think CCW reform is more important than defeating an AWB. I think CCW is the most important gun-rights issue there is. Carrying a gun makes the connection between guns and the right to self-defense concrete, instead of abstract. Name a state that has gone shall-issue and then had any type of meaningful gun control legislation pass? None.

Anyway... I'm not bashing the NRA. I'm a member and will contribute as much as I can to them.

A separate California CCW org might be a good idea. There will be a lot of defeats. The NRA should maintain its "we don't lose" status. Let some other org take the losses.

The best way to start this is if we had a champion for CCW reform in the legislature. That is how it has gone in the other states. Some crazy person in the leg. takes up the issue and pursues it until it's not so crazy anymore.

CalNRA
09-02-2007, 4:34 PM
here is my take.

We could require the legislators to live in the part of their district that has the highest population density and lowest income level.

On top of that we should give them no extra police as everyone else who live there.

Let's wait and see how long it takes before a bunch of them understand what CCW means to a lot of people who aren't politicians. It's easy for well-pampered politicos from the suburbs to say CCW is not needed until they really need it.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 4:39 PM
My point about the linkage of AWB's and lack of shall issue CCW is that there is a political reality inherent. If you can beat the state legislature at the legislative game, you can probably stop or roll back an AWB.

I don't fully agree that an AWB is less important than CCW. Let me caveat that I think they are both VERY important - but of the two - if we need a fail safe for the bill of rights - tyranny's are more afraid of rifles.

That said, strategically and tactically right now - with Parker/Heller coming, we'll waste effort chasing CCW where we can probably succeed at unsafe handgun loosening and other things that may actually be harder to get rid of post Parker/Heller.

CCW shall issue is going to be about the third thing that Parker/Heller forces. Also note that we may just get national reciprocity post Parker/Heller so we can ignore the issue...

-Gene

bulgron
09-02-2007, 4:56 PM
I don't fully agree that an AWB is less important than CCW. Let me caveat that I think they are both VERY important - but of the two - if we need a fail safe for the bill of rights - tyranny's are more afraid of rifles.


There's more than one kind of tyranny; they aren't all the kind that you resist via rifles from behind the barricades. There's also the tyranny of neglect where in a people are repressed because the state refuses to protect them. See the freed slaves in the post civil war south for an example of what I mean.

In any case, I'm pretty sure that CCW reform would result in AWB reform, and vice versa. Question is, which is easier to convince the people of CA that it's a good idea?

Which plays better:

1. Repeal the AWB so that you can have the tools to shoot back at the federal government if they go all rogue on us.
2. Implement CCW so that your daughter/wife/etc has the tools they need to resist the rapist.


Or

1. Repeal the AWB so that you have the tools that you need to shoot back at the state police if they go rogue on us.
2. Implement CCW so that gays and lesbians can defend themselves against hate crimes.

I could go on, but I won't expend the bits. Hopefully I've made my point.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 5:03 PM
There's more than one kind of tyranny; they aren't all the kind that you resist via rifles from behind the barricades. There's also the tyranny of neglect where in a people are repressed because the state refuses to protect them. See the freed slaves in the post civil war south for an example of what I mean.

That's why the Deacons for Defense advocated rifle ownership... Oh wait...


Which plays better:

1. Repeal the AWB so that you can have the tools to shoot back at the federal government if they go all rogue on us.
2. Implement CCW so that your daughter/wife/etc has the tools they need to resist the rapist.

Or

1. Repeal the AWB so that you have the tools that you need to shoot back at the state police if they go rogue on us.
2. Implement CCW so that gays and lesbians can defend themselves against hate crimes.

I could go on, but I won't expend the bits. Hopefully I've made my point.

Call a CA Senator from LA or the Bay Area and see how either of those play. Best of luck to you.

-Gene

Piper
09-02-2007, 5:35 PM
I don't know how many people are CRPA members, but this is the first paragraph in the "Legislative Watch" section of "the Firing Line". In regards to CCW reform it says, "In the face of strong opposition from law enforcement, doctors, teachers, and the liberal politicians who dominate the legislature, most California legislators are reluctant to author CCW issuance reform...." So, it's very apparent to me that the defeatist attitude that I hear basically hands victory to the opposition without a fight. It's kinda like the experiment done with the elephant, when you tie it up long enough and make it belive that it can't get away, it won't even try. So then you can just tie the most minimum cord to the elephant and it will still believe the it can't escape. Unfortunately, this is the mindset of the gun lobby in California. Oh sure, we get a few scraps thrown in and call it a resounding victory, but when it comes to things that really matter, legislation that will actually save lives, needless to say we have no Marrion Hammers here. It's a shame too, because the blood of the innocent law abiding citizens of California will be once again on law enforcement, legislators and anyone else that opposes self defense reform.

bulgron
09-02-2007, 5:36 PM
Call a CA Senator from LA or the Bay Area and see how either of those play. Best of luck to you.


I care not one wit about the current Senators from LA or the Bay Area. What I care about is changing the public's mind about guns so that they replace the current crop of anti-RKBA politicians with people who have their heads screwed on straight on this issue.

This is a fight for the hearts and minds of the California voter. Get the voter on our side, and we can kick the bad politicians out of office.

You seem to be focused on only what's possible today. Me, I'm more concerned about what the state can be turned into tomorrow, if we all band together and fight for it.

In order to change the voter's mind, you have to make the gun issue personal for them. I believe that very few California voters can ever imagine needing to take up arms against their own government, much less being able to imagine personally doing that.

But I think most people can imagine needing to resist criminal activity. Or, if not themselves personally, I think most Californians can imagine wanting to grant others the power to resist criminal activities. Talk about rapists and people who engage in hate crimes, talk about resisting those people, and you can probably get a shall-issue CCW movement going pretty quickly in this state.

But to do it, you have to start talking about it in places other than little hidden corners of the internet.

To turn it into a public debate, you need to be pushing for the legislation.

See how that works?

dfletcher
09-02-2007, 5:48 PM
here is my take.

We could require the legislators to live in the part of their district that has the highest population density and lowest income level.

On top of that we should give them no extra police as everyone else who live there.

Let's wait and see how long it takes before a bunch of them understand what CCW means to a lot of people who aren't politicians. It's easy for well-pampered politicos from the suburbs to say CCW is not needed until they really need it.

It is honorable to think education of this sort will impart wisdom and understanding. But I think in this case it's not realistic. Like Dom Perata, the politicians would simply get their own CCWs because they're special and have no pangs of conscience as they continue to deny the same right to others.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 5:56 PM
Piper,

I would suggest steering very clear of CRPA. They've been at best neutral and possibly negative for gun rights in California. I'd suggest searching through the threads here to get more details.

bulgron,

Good luck to you man. Start spending some of your money to educate people. I look forward to seeing how much you're willing to spend in the face of a majority attitude against you. Me, I'll be focused on using the tools that protect disfavored minority rights to reinvigorate the RKBA including CCW.

-Gene

CCWFacts
09-02-2007, 6:24 PM
My point about the linkage of AWB's and lack of shall issue CCW is that there is a political reality inherent. If you can beat the state legislature at the legislative game, you can probably stop or roll back an AWB.

Certainly. While the rest of this country has moved solidly for RKBA (no AWBs, shall-issue, reciprocity, etc) CA has moved in the opposite direction. It looks like we have stopped the slide, and are making small legislative gains. Your point is that the reality is, our state leg. is so hostile that we're not going to get any big gains through without judicial force. I think that is correct.

That said, strategically and tactically right now - with Parker/Heller coming, we'll waste effort chasing CCW where we can probably succeed at unsafe handgun loosening and other things that may actually be harder to get rid of post Parker/Heller.

CCW shall issue is going to be about the third thing that Parker/Heller forces. Also note that we may just get national reciprocity post Parker/Heller so we can ignore the issue...

We're all pinning a lot of hopes on Heller. It is our best hope I think. There are also CCW reform judicial things that could happen without help from Heller, but Heller might be the big one that finally protects a right to bear (carry) arms. We might end up in a situation where carrying is constitutionally protected, and if people in this state don't want to have to look at us open carrying, then they had better start issuing CCWs. That's what happened in Ohio I believe.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 6:27 PM
There are two judicial directions on CCW.

1. Equal protection. I think Jim March isn't a posterboy but it doesn't mean he was actually off base on that point.

2. Parker/Heller plus an incorporation case is going to change the environment. Once that environment changes, the legislature may be a very different matter. This is analogous to both your and my comments on Ohio.

-Gene

CCWFacts
09-02-2007, 6:35 PM
One other thing, which I know sounds minor, but may be big help, is NV just passed a reciprocity law. I assume that NV is the #1 out-of-state destination for Californians. Presumably Californians will soon be able to carry in NV using a FL (and perhaps others) permit. This will give California gun owners something to think about and might inspire more to start wondering, why can't I carry in my home state?

I had hopes for the national reciprocity act, which would have really fixed things in CA, but unfortunately our current speaker is a nut-case when it comes to RKBA issues.

As for equal protection, yes. I'm not generally overjoyed by JM's legal reasoning but there are plenty of other legal ways to attack Sheriff Baca (etc)'s issuance practices. It's mainly going to take some determined plaintiffs. This will happen sooner or later. Some of these sheriffs have programs which are so corrupt, they are due to be smacked around in court.

VegasND
09-02-2007, 7:00 PM
I have been hoping for the same thing as you. When I leave NV, it is almost always for AZ or CA. AZ recognizes my CHL but CA doesn't. I would like to be able to cross the state line without having to worry about the restrictive storage imposed in CA. Even without the CHL, carrying a loaded handgun in the car is legal most places here.

One other thing, which I know sounds minor, but may be big help, is NV just passed a reciprocity law. I assume that NV is the #1 out-of-state destination for Californians. Presumably Californians will soon be able to carry in NV using a FL (and perhaps others) permit. This will give California gun owners something to think about and might inspire more to start wondering, why can't I carry in my home state?

I had hopes for the national reciprocity act, which would have really fixed things in CA, but unfortunately our current speaker is a nut-case when it comes to RKBA issues.

As for equal protection, yes. I'm not generally overjoyed by JM's legal reasoning but there are plenty of other legal ways to attack Sheriff Baca (etc)'s issuance practices. It's mainly going to take some determined plaintiffs. This will happen sooner or later. Some of these sheriffs have programs which are so corrupt, they are due to be smacked around in court.