PDA

View Full Version : Use statewide PROP. ballot measures to counter gun control


Warrior King
09-11-2013, 5:53 PM
If we start using the statewide initiative procedure and put some propositions on the ballot such as a "comprehensive gun civil rights bill" or "modern rifle protection bill" or "sports and self defense and public hearing protection act allowing sound baffling in guns" etc. during general elections we can keep the anti's off balance and playing defense.

The real lesson of the CO. recall is not to do recall here cause we have term limits... but to use every tool at our disposal against this tyranny against our rights.

Also some pro gun pro freedom propositions would be a good way to get nationals groups like the NRA behind California gun owners, and a way to jump start recruiting and putting together a galvanized grass roots pro gun organization.

Hell the NRA could put out a mailing in CA and recruit the needed signatures in CA to get some pro gun bills on the next general election ballot.

The best way to counter the Lee's and Steinbergs is to take it to the people...even in a liberal state most actual voters tend to be more on the conservative side.

My next thread will be what pro gun rights proposition would you support as an activist and sign?

asingh8406
09-11-2013, 6:23 PM
some one needs to take initiative then all organizations will follow. Also all gun owners need to be united

Warrior King
09-11-2013, 6:32 PM
some one needs to take initiative then all organizations will follow. Also all gun owners need to be united

yes perhaps we can get some of the lawyers in calguns to draft some ballot measures that most cal gunners will agree to...

CalBear
09-11-2013, 6:50 PM
My gut feeling is CA and CO are still very very different places. I don't think you could pull off a gun rights proposition here in CA, and not by a long shot. With gun ownership numbers being as low as they are in CA, it will not work.

Warrior King
09-11-2013, 6:59 PM
[QUOTE=CalBear;12288188]My gut feeling is CA and CO are still very very different places. I don't think you could pull off a gun rights proposition here in CA, and not by a long shot. With gun ownership numbers being as low as they are in CA, it will not work.[/QUOTE

Depends on how it is marketed. For example if we got the money from NRA and some of the larger gun companies, and galvanized gun owners in other states to send money we could run adds about a female facing a violent stalker and not having the absolute right to conceal carry in CA. to defend herself... Can you see Madonna or anyone in Hollywood objecting to a woman's right to self defense against a stalker?

Anything is better than letting guys like Yee strip us of our rights without a counter campaign.

There is an art to framing issues to get neutral voters on our side. If we do not start pushing back gun owners will be in the same league as brothels, massage parlors, and pedophiles. Scorned, despised, outlawed and targets for any law maker looking for a group to gang up on to feather their bonnet.

We need to focus on "public safety' issues as we can define them in the media such as

Prop. # XXXX

Do Californians have a right to modern rifles for recreation and self defense as Americans have in other states?

Do Californians have a right to defend themselves in public meaning concealed or open carry.. as most Americans have in other states?

Do Californians have a right to protection of their second amendment rights against arbitrary regulation and gun seizures by politicians at state and municipal level based on semantics and prejudices rather than clearly defined public safety data?

Do Californians have the right to hunt humanely using follow up shots from semi auto rifles as the hunters in others states do?

Do Californians have the right to modern methods to limit gun noise such as silencers or baffles built into arms to protect the hearing of shooters and bystanders while exercising their 2a rights as Americans in others states or as Europeans do?

This could take decades of small steps.

Daveca
09-11-2013, 10:37 PM
I agree with the idea. It may be one of the best possibilities for the gun owners of Ca. to keep/restore their rights at a time when they are in jeopardy.

e90bmw
09-12-2013, 9:57 AM
I'm in. I'll gather signatures. I'll host space in my domain...

BigGunzBlazin
09-12-2013, 8:20 PM
Cal Bear, all we are asking from you, is to do your part. Do not underestimate the public and its need for safety. I am all for doing this and getting the 802K signatures we need to get a ballot initiative done. We MUST have it timed well so that we can get this on a voting cycle that matters. The Valley's and inland areas and those here on this side of the "Orange Curtain" are all for this and will openly support it to the end.

AlexDD
09-12-2013, 8:37 PM
I can see the attack ads on the tv for the other side. We have an electorate that does not care about our gun rights.

These people are voting in all these anti 2a people.

Tincon
09-12-2013, 8:48 PM
No, for the following reasons:

1. It's too expensive. It's been tried as a grass roots action before and it does not work. These things cost millions of dollars.

2. It won't win. We just don't have the votes. I don't care how you sell it, the lame stream media will pick it up and call it the gun nut initiative.

3. Even if we won, LCAV/Brady can attack it in court. Guess who decides if it gets defended or not: Kamala Harris. Thanks to the Prop. 8 compromise BS from SCOTUS, we can't step in to defend it.

That means that even if we spend millions getting it on the ballot, millions more promoting it, and by some miracle it passes, Kamala Harris can just decide not to defend a court action against it and it goes away.

SPUTTER
09-12-2013, 9:52 PM
So...keep losing court cases is the strategy?

Tincon
09-12-2013, 10:21 PM
So...keep losing court cases is the strategy?

CGF is the group that keeps losing, other groups actually win: http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/NRA-CA-Accomplishments1.pdf

Kestryll
09-12-2013, 10:31 PM
Sorry, I know we want to do something but this is NOT the course to take.

There is no real way to convince the relatively small number of Californians who vote to support a pro gun Proposition.
It will fail.

Worse, every piece of anti gun legislation would then be 'justified' as 'doing the will of the people'.
Every wanna be Yee or Steinberg will point to the failed Prop as PROOF that Californians WANT more gun control.

You will spend millions to do nothing but hand those who would steal our rights a nuclear weapon, one they can say we gave them that proves they are right and we are wrong.

Bustercat
09-12-2013, 10:55 PM
if it can be spearheaded by groups like the pink pistols, and given a "self defense by minorities" (women, etc.) appeal it stands a much better chance of reaching more people in cities than seeming to only be in the interest of guys in gadsden shirts with punisher hats.
Bring up gun control used as a reaction to black panther RKBA march in Sacto, right to defense against gay bashing, etc.

Blue state branding for blue state votes.

Sinixstar
09-12-2013, 11:12 PM
No, for the following reasons:

1. It's too expensive. It's been tried as a grass roots action before and it does not work. These things cost millions of dollars.

2. It won't win. We just don't have the votes. I don't care how you sell it, the lame stream media will pick it up and call it the gun nut initiative.

3. Even if we won, LCAV/Brady can attack it in court. Guess who decides if it gets defended or not: Kamala Harris. Thanks to the Prop. 8 compromise BS from SCOTUS, we can't step in to defend it.

That means that even if we spend millions getting it on the ballot, millions more promoting it, and by some miracle it passes, Kamala Harris can just decide not to defend a court action against it and it goes away.

I would also add:
1) the initial thought of "get money from the NRA" is a very bad idea. California is the Brady's shining example of gun control at work. Feinstein's home state. The utopian mecca if you will.
If you take money from the NRA, you will have every single gun control group in the country donating to fight it, politicians lining up to speak out against it, and political/professional media favors called in to cover it (from their side). They'll do this because it's the NRA, and this is California.

2) The language being proposed - there's no way to phrase these things without it getting spun wildly out of control. You start using phrases like "arbitrary regulation" and "gun seizures" and you WILL be spun as the crazy fringe separatist. Language like that is one thing for people who are already firmly in the 2A camp, but even soft supporters will run from that.

If you were to do something like this - it would have to be truly grassroots. Again, if you open the door to outside money and influence, you're not just opening the door -you're opening the floodgates. You don't want that. We lose bigtime if that happens.

I agree we'd have to start small, but even smaller than the suggestions. I would actually start with state-wide preemption, but even that's a double-edged sword. It could at least be spun as "creating a uniform set of laws that everyone follows throughout the state - so there's greater compliance and the laws can be more easily and uniformly enforced". The only problem with that, is now you potentially end up cutting some pro-gun counties and cities off at the knees, and we'd be putting everything in the hands of Sacramento. That could backfire big time.

Basically, I like the idea in theory - but it would be extremely difficult and expensive to pull off, and I don't think the political climate is there right now. If there was a higher profile national debate going on in the house and the senate, or more talk from Obama about looking at gun control measures - you could possibly piggy back off the anti-government sentiment, but there's not at the moment, so we don't even have that going for us (and even that would be weak).

The other major downside is, if/when we lost the ballot initiative, law makers would take that (or at least spin it) as a sign that California LIKES gun control, and wants more of it. That puts us at a serious disadvantage.

TL:DR - 2/10 would not bang.

e90bmw
09-13-2013, 12:32 PM
No, for the following reasons:

1. It's too expensive. It's been tried as a grass roots action before and it does not work. These things cost millions of dollars.

2. It won't win. We just don't have the votes. I don't care how you sell it, the lame stream media will pick it up and call it the gun nut initiative.

3. Even if we won, LCAV/Brady can attack it in court. Guess who decides if it gets defended or not: Kamala Harris. Thanks to the Prop. 8 compromise BS from SCOTUS, we can't step in to defend it.

That means that even if we spend millions getting it on the ballot, millions more promoting it, and by some miracle it passes, Kamala Harris can just decide not to defend a court action against it and it goes away.

#3 - Actually we couldn't step in for Prop8 because we would not be "adversely affected by it's outcome". In this case we would be directly affected, therefor we would have standing as long as you owned the item or intended to purchase.

Tincon
09-13-2013, 1:35 PM
#3 - Actually we couldn't step in for Prop8 because we would not be "adversely affected by it's outcome". In this case we would be directly affected, therefor we would have standing as long as you owned the item or intended to purchase.

I'm not so sure. From Perry: A litigant “raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

If we amended the CA Constitution to protect 2A, and such protection was being ignored, that would seem to be "citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws." Your rights to buy a gun would not be more particularly violated than any other citizen's, just because you really wanted to buy one.

At a minimum it's another hurdle, and you can bet the AG would be filing Amici explaining why we didn't have standing.

ldsnet
09-13-2013, 1:47 PM
IF we could get EVERY gun owner in the State to vote YES, we would win. This board, CRPA, NRA represent what 5%, 10% of the total gun owners in the state? To win the majority vote we would need EVERY owner on election day.

Voter turn out is in the 30-40% range of eligible voters. We would have to do MUCH better to get our cause.

Who has $2,000,000 to donate to fund our cause? Proposition elections are EXPENSIVE! MUST have professional folks to get the signatures to even get the proposition on the ballot (and they must be within a certain time period and they MUST be valid signatures).

Then the final stab in our back - when the liberals challenge the vote (and they will challenge it), there is no requirement for the State Attorney General to support the election, and the judge does NOT have to allow someone else to defend the challenge and it fails on summary judgement at the first court appearance.

Cheaper to vote with your wallet - take your Salary, your retirement and your assets and get out of CA (I plan to within the next 12 months) CA has been my home for the last 26 years - it obviously no longer represents my interests.

jmdove
09-13-2013, 8:10 PM
IF we could get EVERY gun owner in the State to vote YES, we would win. This board, CRPA, NRA represent what 5%, 10% of the total gun owners in the state? To win the majority vote we would need EVERY owner on election day.

Voter turn out is in the 30-40% range of eligible voters. We would have to do MUCH better to get our cause.

Who has $2,000,000 to donate to fund our cause? Proposition elections are EXPENSIVE! MUST have professional folks to get the signatures to even get the proposition on the ballot (and they must be within a certain time period and they MUST be valid signatures).

Then the final stab in our back - when the liberals challenge the vote (and they will challenge it), there is no requirement for the State Attorney General to support the election, and the judge does NOT have to allow someone else to defend the challenge and it fails on summary judgement at the first court appearance.

Cheaper to vote with your wallet - take your Salary, your retirement and your assets and get out of CA (I plan to within the next 12 months) CA has been my home for the last 26 years - it obviously no longer represents my interests.

No wrong thinking. Remember "the country goes as California goes." This must
be defeated at the SCOTUS and the issue will then die once and for all.

Apocalypsenerd
09-13-2013, 8:31 PM
No, for the following reasons:

1. It's too expensive. It's been tried as a grass roots action before and it does not work. These things cost millions of dollars.

2. It won't win. We just don't have the votes. I don't care how you sell it, the lame stream media will pick it up and call it the gun nut initiative.

3. Even if we won, LCAV/Brady can attack it in court. Guess who decides if it gets defended or not: Kamala Harris. Thanks to the Prop. 8 compromise BS from SCOTUS, we can't step in to defend it.

That means that even if we spend millions getting it on the ballot, millions more promoting it, and by some miracle it passes, Kamala Harris can just decide not to defend a court action against it and it goes away.

Tincon, does that mean that someone could challenge Prop 13 on property taxes and our state government could refuse to defend it?

Warrior King
09-13-2013, 9:37 PM
I agree a reactionary proposition that appears to come from NRA and Republicans would not look good.

My calculation is that the public wants some common sense gun laws. We are at that point already.

If we can come up with laws that affirm common sense safety and give gun owners incentives such as to take safety classes like waiving 10 day waiting period with proof of safety class,

Allow members of chartered gun clubs and ranges to own and rent hi capacity magazines for range only use...again common sense safety and creates a loop hole so gun owners can use them where it counts at the range...

Another common sense pro gun community law would be allowing gun noise suppression to protect gun owners, workers at ranges, Law enforcement, and the public...again common sense safety and would help promote recreational use of firearms. The Antis want us to suffer and go deaf when we shoot.

We can start to control the thrust of round two (the next presidential elections), and appear reasonable... expose the opposition for what they are which is extremists hell bent to seize all guns. The objective should be to create loop holes that can be opened further and puts the antis on the defensive.

Also the campaign finance laws are dead we can take money from anyone we want and not have to report it...they will smear us even if we refuse NRA help so we might as well take money from anyplace we can get it ...including the gun companies and saturate the airwaves with a first strike to define the debate...and use gun company money to hire staff to get signatures.

CEDaytonaRydr
09-13-2013, 9:56 PM
Sorry, I know we want to do something but this is NOT the course to take.

There is no real way to convince the relatively small number of Californians who vote to support a pro gun Proposition.
It will fail..

I'm not so sure...

They are basically sneaking these bills through like "thieves in the night". The news hasn't been reporting on them, they haven't really been vocal about it, and the only reason people like us know about them is because we take a personal interest in it. Plus, I think we do a better job of organizing people to get out and vote, when the chips are down. Once people see how sweeping the gun control measures were this year, momentum might come back in our direction...

I think it might be worth a shot but whatever...

In the mean time, here's what I suggest everyone do: To the maximum extent possible, try to avoid paying ANY state tax. The sooner this bureaucratic cesspool goes broke, the better!!!

Warrior King
09-13-2013, 10:07 PM
I'm not so sure...

They are basically sneaking these bills through like "thieves in the night". The news hasn't been reporting on them, they haven't really been vocal about it, and the only reason people like us know about them is because we take a personal interest in it. Plus, I think we do a better job of organizing people to get out and vote, when the chips are down. Once people see how sweeping the gun control measures were this year, momentum might come back in our direction...

I think it might be worth a shot but whatever...

In the mean time, here's what I suggest everyone do: To the maximum extent possible, try to avoid paying ANY state tax. The sooner this bureaucratic cesspool goes broke, the better!!!

I agree. I see a backlash against most of the acts of this legislature. Top of the list is the Transgender locker room law, allowing Illegals to drive, and then the torrent of gun laws.

Warrior King
09-13-2013, 10:13 PM
3. Even if we won, LCAV/Brady can attack it in court. Guess who decides if it gets defended or not: Kamala Harris. Thanks to the Prop. 8 compromise BS from SCOTUS, we can't step in to defend it.

Good point other props did die in court after voter approval.

Warrior King
09-13-2013, 10:27 PM
This from L.A. Times about Co. recall

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-colorado-gun-recall-20130911,0,4865795.story

main points are it started grass roots and the big players took sides...NRA vs Bloomberg.

Other points are there will now be a proposition to overturn the law in Co. after the recall.

"What began as a local effort, however, quickly gained national attention once the recall question was cleared in mid-July for the ballot, drawing advocates on both sides hoping to either frighten or fortify lawmakers nationwide who might be considering similar legislation.

The National Rifle Assn. and its allies faced gun control supporters led by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, each side pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign.

Groups with other interests invested heavily as well, including organized labor, Planned Parenthood and the conservative Koch brothers, turning the contest into a wide-ranging free-for-all that surpassed, in Colorado, even the intensity of the 2012 presidential contest.

With the replacement of Morse and Giron by Republicans former Colorado Springs Councilman Bernie Herpin and former Pueblo police officer George Rivera, respectively the Democratic hold on the state Senate shrinks to just one seat. The party has a much larger majority in the state House, enough to thwart any legislative effort to overturn the gun laws.

Opponents are hoping to qualify a ballot initiative in 2014 that would repeal some of the provisions. A group of sheriffs has also filed suit to overturn the legislation."

monk
09-13-2013, 11:11 PM
This from L.A. Times about Co. recall

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-colorado-gun-recall-20130911,0,4865795.story

main points are it started grass roots and the big players took sides...NRA vs Bloomberg.

Other points are there will now be a proposition to overturn the law in Co. after the recall.

"What began as a local effort, however, quickly gained national attention once the recall question was cleared in mid-July for the ballot, drawing advocates on both sides hoping to either frighten or fortify lawmakers nationwide who might be considering similar legislation.

The National Rifle Assn. and its allies faced gun control supporters led by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, each side pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign.

Groups with other interests invested heavily as well, including organized labor, Planned Parenthood and the conservative Koch brothers, turning the contest into a wide-ranging free-for-all that surpassed, in Colorado, even the intensity of the 2012 presidential contest.

With the replacement of Morse and Giron by Republicans former Colorado Springs Councilman Bernie Herpin and former Pueblo police officer George Rivera, respectively the Democratic hold on the state Senate shrinks to just one seat. The party has a much larger majority in the state House, enough to thwart any legislative effort to overturn the gun laws.

Opponents are hoping to qualify a ballot initiative in 2014 that would repeal some of the provisions. A group of sheriffs has also filed suit to overturn the legislation."

In CO you had a lot of people who hated that law. How many people in this state: 1. care, 2. understand what the law entails?

Tincon
09-14-2013, 12:14 AM
Tincon, does that mean that someone could challenge Prop 13 on property taxes and our state government could refuse to defend it?

Sure. Perry was a terrible ruling; SCOTUS might find a way to reverse itself with a case like that, but then again maybe not. A gun prop is dead in the water though.

Apocalypsenerd
09-15-2013, 7:14 PM
@Tincon: So what exactly was the ruling? Only states can defend a state law?

What about the recent ruling by SCOTUS that individual citizens can challenge things?

Tincon
09-15-2013, 7:23 PM
@Tincon: So what exactly was the ruling? Only states can defend a state law?


As Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out in his dissent, “The whole object of the initiative system is to establish a lawmaking process that does not depend upon state officials …[But] this process is undermined if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged in a legal proceeding.” If politicians don’t like the initiative — and often they don’t — they can now just decline to defend it and let it die.


What about the recent ruling by SCOTUS that individual citizens can challenge things?
Can you be a bit more specific?

Apocalypsenerd
09-15-2013, 9:23 PM
Unfortunately I don't remember the case name. I believe a woman challenged a CA law and the state contested her standing. It went to the SCOTUS and they ruled that any individual citizen has standing in regards to laws that affect them, or something along those lines.

I don't think it was a gun case.

2nd Mass
09-15-2013, 10:46 PM
If it's written from a marketing stand point to bar against civil rights infringements against everyone but, language including protected classes such as disabled, minorities etc it may fly under some anti radar. Also if the bill includes penalties for those committing violent felonies with firearms (pick a few) that could make it harder for the anti media to touch. Just an idea. Agree with Kes though that it could back fire.

Warrior King
09-16-2013, 5:07 AM
If it's written from a marketing stand point to bar against civil rights infringements against everyone but, language including protected classes such as disabled, minorities etc it may fly under some anti radar. Also if the bill includes penalties for those committing violent felonies with firearms (pick a few) that could make it harder for the anti media to touch. Just an idea. Agree with Kes though that it could back fire.

You get where I was going with this.

How can the progressives fight a civil rights bill or any bill that affirms a woman's right to self defense and concealed carry against say a stalker...or allows teachers to defend their students?

The focus could also be on equal access to self defense and protection which could involve discrimination against the poor and minorities in terms of being able to get arms and ammo in urban areas.

Warrior King
09-16-2013, 5:12 AM
In CO you had a lot of people who hated that law. How many people in this state: 1. care, 2. understand what the law entails?

What happens is when the big players get involved like the NRA and Bloomberg even the low information voters which are often called "independents" start to pay attention. The key is making the stakes high enough where both sides decide its symbolic and they can not afford to lose.

fr33domfightr
09-16-2013, 5:45 AM
What about an Initiative reaffirming the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land? Would anyone object?!

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

IncVoid
09-16-2013, 6:04 AM
My gut feeling is CA and CO are still very very different places. I don't think you could pull off a gun rights proposition here in CA, and not by a long shot. With gun ownership numbers being as low as they are in CA, it will not work.

They all left moved out of state, or didn't register etc.

Sunday
09-16-2013, 6:43 AM
The majority of people in Calif are zombies.

Mitch
09-16-2013, 6:54 AM
Please read and heed the following:

California once had this neat political tool, generally called 'initiative and referendum'. In theory, it allowed The People to go around a recalcitrant government and enact some kind of reform.

1978's Jarvis/Gann "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)) campaign, AKA "Prop 13" is an example where, at least technically, that theory worked as expected (the actual results of that are arguable as to benefit).

The structure of the tool still remains; the California Secretary of State's web site, http://www.sos.ca.gov/ , has an information page on initiatives at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/how-to-qualify-an-initiative.htm.

Anyone can see the current list, for the upcoming [2012] election, at
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm, and there is a lot of historical information at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/resources-and-historical-information.htm.

Initiatives seem to appear all the time. Some win, some lose. The Legislature puts several of them on the ballot; other than that, it is usually union or corporate interests that do it.

As painful as it is to say, in this environment, gun owners are definitely the little guys.

A really thorough treatment of why that's important is a book-length document at the Center for Governmental Studies (http://www.cgs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=5&Itemid=72).

The bottom line?

and has been since 1982, the last time a volunteer initiative made it to the ballot.

A Bit of History about Gun-related Ballot Measures

First one I can find is in 1976.

Below, “(S)” means a Statute was proposed, “(CA)” means a Constitutional Amendment was proposed.


1976 - - Handgun Regulation (S) - - failed to qualify

1980 - - Concealable Firearms (S) - - failed to qualify

1982 - - Guns (S) (Prop 15 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_15,_Handgun_Registration_In itiative_%281982%29)) - - - - qualified - - - - rejected

1984 - - Firearms (CA) - - failed to qualify

1986 - - Firearms (CA) - - failed to qualify

1987 - - Ownership of Firearms (CA) - - withdrawn

1989 - - Ownership of Firearms (CA) - - failed to qualify

1990 - - Firearms Regulation (S) - - failed to qualify

1991 - - Firearms Ownership (CA) - - failed to qualify

1994 - - Gun Control. Assault/Military-Style Weapons Ban (S) - - failed to qualify

1996 - - Felonies Involving Firearms. Mandatory Additional Prison Terms (S) - - withdrawn

1996 - - Felonies Involving Firearms. Mandatory Additional Prison Terms (S) - - failed to qualify

1996 - - Firearms. Right to Possess and Carry. Penalties for Criminal Use (CA/S) - - failed to qualify

1997 - - Arms and Ammunition. Unrestricted Personal Possession and Use (CA) - - failed to qualify

1998 - - Right to Possess and Carry Firearms. Penalties for Criminal Use (CA) - - failed to qualify

2000 - - Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CA) - - failed to qualify

2001 - - Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CA) - - failed to qualify

2004 - - Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (CA) - - failed to qualify

Out of 18 items submitted, somehow related to guns, just 1 actually qualified for the ballot – that is, just 1 collected sufficient valid signatures.

Historically, since 1912, 3 of 4 proposed measures failed to qualify, and of the qualified, 2 of 3 were rejected. From 1976 through 2010, just 14.5% of submitted measures qualified, and for the first 10 years of the 21st century, it has been just 11.1% successful.


Here's the Secretary of State's Campaign Financing page for ballot measures:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/

Look at the sponsors. Look at the money spent to propose and oppose.

Try to look dispassionately at the current public climate in California: most people do not care about guns.

Guns are not a 'pocket book' issue.

Guns have a negative image in our media. That provides free anti-gun advertising.

A good portion of California gun owners - present Calguns company excepted! - just want to be left alone*. There's a strong aversion to 'getting on lists' and 'attracting attention'. Signing up to support a ballot measure, even registering to vote, is often rejected. So, whatever the real numbers of gun owners in California, their interests are diverse; 'gun owners' are not a political force - gun ownership does not unite us.

Barring our own unpredictable pro-gun event on the scale of Patrick Purdy or Virginia Tech, some huge emotion-changing, if-only-they'd-had-guns-they'd-have-been-OK thing, public support for the kinds of changes in gun laws most Calgunners would like to see just is not there.

See also this story from the 3/23/2012 Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20233763/california-ballot-initiative-would-make-college-free-residents?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

So, because
the public is not on our side
the media is against us
gun owners are not a powerful bloc
ballot measures are extremely expensive
the initiative process really doesn't work for 'the people' any more
- that is, because the current conditions are just wrong, trying to get some pro-gun measure on a ballot isn't helpful.

That sucks, but that's real.

It might be possible to change 3. It's possible, I think, to reduce the impact of 2 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=141665) and move to change 1. But until we change 1 and 3, no ballot measure we would like has a chance to pass.

(* I'm sure quite a number of Calgunners would also like to be 'left alone', but being here shows at least some realization that gub'mint isn't going along with that.)

ddestruel
09-16-2013, 9:13 AM
though i dont disagree that the prop efforts might be in vain i also want to point out that all attempts listed there are prior to heller, prior to an individual right be recognized and prodminately during the height of the AWB, and anti-LTC movements.

:oji:


We can learn alot from history and the definition of stupidity is attempting to do the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result .........

But the verbage of many of those attempts the, timing and general public trends/sentiment nationally and in CA were very different than they have been the last 4-8 years. Nationally there has been a major public opinion shift and in CA there has been a significant upswing in firearm ownership activity. should we not attempt again.... im not sure i would be a supporter of slamming the door on anything, and dialogue never hurt anyone.

Strategizing and coming up with anything would require serious consideration, slogan, verbiage and proper spin with a supporting campaign to grab peoples attention. is it possible to make that happen sure but a real spark in CA has to occur and grab the publics attention with anger to make it possible. if not poor verbiage and poor planning would result in no better results. there are states bucking the trend and nationally the pendulum has swung but CA will be one of the last to the table. for now there are better options but i never slam a door. all the door slammers would have had us believe illinois was lost cause and waste of money years ago…..

Keep what ever the tactic is simple, keep the message like the tip of a needle on point and make sure the verbiage of a recall or what ever else down the road does not become muddied…… when the message is hard to understand or fails to get voter buy in it’ll never work.

Tincon
09-16-2013, 9:19 AM
The verbiage does not matter. I've said why, as have others. Unless someone can address those issues raised then the door does need to be shut on this idea. It is not a smart idea.

Ripon83
09-16-2013, 1:53 PM
As soon as you wrote "comprehensive" I tuned out. Once a ballot initiative crosses the line into two topics or more its going to lose, legally I mean, and that is a waste of time and money - money better spent electing a legislative body that would protect us.

That said I think a single topic, simple measure, serving as a shot across the bow would be legal: Such as:

The people of California amend the State Constitution to forbid the State and and local government in its boundaries from registering firearms.

The argument would be registration leads to taxation and confiscation it does not lead to reducing crime.



If we start using the statewide initiative procedure and put some propositions on the ballot such as a "comprehensive gun civil rights bill" or "modern rifle protection bill" or "sports and self defense and public hearing protection act allowing sound baffling in guns" etc. during general elections we can keep the anti's off balance and playing defense.

The real lesson of the CO. recall is not to do recall here cause we have term limits... but to use every tool at our disposal against this tyranny against our rights.

Also some pro gun pro freedom propositions would be a good way to get nationals groups like the NRA behind California gun owners, and a way to jump start recruiting and putting together a galvanized grass roots pro gun organization.

Hell the NRA could put out a mailing in CA and recruit the needed signatures in CA to get some pro gun bills on the next general election ballot.

The best way to counter the Lee's and Steinbergs is to take it to the people...even in a liberal state most actual voters tend to be more on the conservative side.

My next thread will be what pro gun rights proposition would you support as an activist and sign?