PDA

View Full Version : Where is the pro-gun legislation???


Rivers
04-04-2008, 3:05 PM
It seems that we're under constant attack with absolutely stupid legislation. I rarely see anything that is pro-2A or pro-gun introduced. Keep in mind that the anti's keep hammering away with their wish list, figuring that eventually some will get passed. Maybe they count on attrition or fatigue.

My wish list: (of things that I consider possible in this legislature - a big qualifier!)

Remove the exemption of law enforcement from the "Safe Gun List" as this is a public safety issue. If a LEO uses a handgun that is not on the list and is involved in any shooting in which a person is injured by that weapon, the taxpayers are exposed to unnecessary liability for allowing our public safety officers to use handguns that we know to be unsafe.

(OK, that's BS but we all know that the whole "safe gun list" is BS. A perfect match!)

Any other ideas on legislation that should be introduced for our side?

Glock22Fan
04-04-2008, 3:12 PM
I hate to pour cold water on your idea, but I think that such a wish list would be vaporware until we can elect some more friendly people to Sacramento.

Remember, it's harder to re-introduce failed ideas than introduce fresh ones with a chance of passing.

Crazed_SS
04-04-2008, 3:27 PM
It seems that we're under constant attack with absolutely stupid legislation. I rarely see anything that is pro-2A or pro-gun introduced. Keep in mind that the anti's keep hammering away with their wish list, figuring that eventually some will get passed. Maybe they count on attrition or fatigue.

My wish list: (of things that I consider possible in this legislature - a big qualifier!)

Remove the exemption of law enforcement from the "Safe Gun List" as this is a public safety issue. If a LEO uses a handgun that is not on the list and is involved in any shooting in which a person is injured by that weapon, the taxpayers are exposed to unnecessary liability for allowing our public safety officers to use handguns that we know to be unsafe.

(OK, that's BS but we all know that the whole "safe gun list" is BS. A perfect match!)

Any other ideas on legislation that should be introduced for our side?

Umm look what state you live in.

Think of this gun control thing as a battle. We've already been overrun by the enemy and now we're fighting a rear guard action to keep from being completely wiped out. Sure we might make a stand with stuff like OLLs everynow and then, but we cant turn the tide and go on the offensive anymore.

The anti politicians will never give up even though they've virtually won already. They absolutely will not stop until gun ownership becomes so expensive, cumbersome, and legally perilous that no one wants to own a gun anymore.

yellowfin
04-04-2008, 3:36 PM
Consider this also: they are able to act unilaterally because there is no counterattack. You can throw as many punches as you like if you don't have to block any. It is not that we lack gun friendly legislators, but they are too busy ducking to actually stand up. The antis aren't giving up because nobody is giving them reason to. Why should they think they aren't winning when nobody's putting up a fight? It is not that they believe the antis stupidity but they lack the words and perhaps the courage to say otherwise.

KenpoProfessor
04-04-2008, 3:54 PM
Umm look what state you live in.

Think of this gun control thing as a battle. We've already been overrun by the enemy and now we're fighting a rear guard action to keep from being completely wiped out. Sure we might make a stand with stuff like OLLs everynow and then, but we cant turn the tide and go on the offensive anymore.

The anti politicians will never give up even though they've virtually won already. They absolutely will not stop until gun ownership becomes so expensive, cumbersome, and legally perilous that no one wants to own a gun anymore.


It's good to see you've accepted this reality. I did almost a year ago, and with what I'm seeing, it was the smart choice as a gun owner and CCP holder. I can now make decisions affecting my safety as I see fit, not as the legislators see fit to control.


When will you be moving, or will you accept the status quo and stick around? You're not near the gun nut many here are so I'm not sure it's that big of an issue for you other than wanting Shall Issue CCW.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

steadyrock
04-04-2008, 4:04 PM
This brings to mind a topic I was discussing with a friend on another forum. Does anybody know if there currently exists anything like a California Gun Owner's Political Action Committee? I am envisioning an organization whose purpose is to support pro-gun politicians at the state level and to assist those politicians where possible in introducing and supporting pro-gun legislation. To extend Crazed_SS's battle analogy, this would be organizing the rear guard, while calling in a JDAM once in a while. :79:

I have seen the Gun Owners of CA website, does anybody have experience with this organization and are they similar to what I have described? I can't quite tell if they match what I am describing.

If no such organization exists to your collective knowledge, I will start a new thread discussing the possibility of creating such a structure and the idea can start gathering steam. Thanks for your advice.

bulgron
04-04-2008, 4:11 PM
When will you be moving, or will you accept the status quo and stick around?

Or will you refuse to accept the status quo and stick around to fight the good fight?

It's curious to me that some fellow who ran away to another state has decided to spend his spare time hanging around a California message board urging people to give up the fight, just collapse completely, there's no sense in continuing on.

To follow Kenpo's advice is to hand CA over to the antis for generations, just when the Supreme Court might (probably will) finally give us the tool we need to start reclaiming ground from the antis.

You know, once the antis consolidate their hold on CA, they'll just be coming for the other states next.

So whose side are you on, anyway, Kenpo?

bulgron
04-04-2008, 4:16 PM
This brings to mind a topic I was discussing with a friend on another forum. Does anybody know if there currently exists anything like a California Gun Owner's Political Action Committee? I am envisioning an organization whose purpose is to support pro-gun politicians at the state level and to assist those politicians where possible in introducing and supporting pro-gun legislation. To extend Crazed_SS's battle analogy, this would be organizing the rear guard, while calling in a JDAM once in a while. :79:

I have seen the Gun Owners of CA website, does anybody have experience with this organization and are they similar to what I have described? I can't quite tell if they match what I am describing.

If no such organization exists to your collective knowledge, I will start a new thread discussing the possibility of creating such a structure and the idea can start gathering steam. Thanks for your advice.

Yes. The NRA. Join up and start attending your local NRA Members Council meetings if you really want to start pushing against the anti-gun agenda in this state. Be aware that just hanging out on internet message boards isn't really going to do anything for gun owners in this state.

You can't just write a couple of checks and expect this problem to be solved.

You are actually going to have to get involved, if you want to fix the anti-gun climate in Sacramento.

steadyrock
04-04-2008, 4:34 PM
Yes. The NRA. Join up and start attending your local NRA Members Council meetings if you really want to start pushing against the anti-gun agenda in this state. Be aware that just hanging out on internet message boards isn't really going to do anything for gun owners in this state.

You can't just write a couple of checks and expect this problem to be solved.

You are actually going to have to get involved, if you want to fix the anti-gun climate in Sacramento.

I am an NRA member. I realize the NRA is one of our biggest guns in this fight (no pun intended), but they work in their own specific ways and frankly, they aren't the end-all, be-all to pro-gun legislation. If they were, we wouldn't have any problems. In a battle, you need more than just heavy artillery which is what the NRA represents in my mind (big and powerful, effective in its own right, but not the proper solution to every issue).

Frankly, I find your tone somewhat offensive. I am not here to butt heads with you but after re-reading my post, I don't find anything in there that would lead you to believe I am "just hanging out on internet message boards" or "just [writing] a couple of checks and [expecting] this problem to be solved". The very point of my writing was to inquire about advocacy organizations and involvement, and I even stated that I am willing to start the ball rolling on a new front if needed. I don't want to reinvent the wheel re: the NRA, the GOA, or other organizations that may fit the bill but I do intend to do more than you suggest. I am very willing to put up my own money, time, work, etc. however is needed in order to assist in this fight and you are out of line to imply otherwise.

KenpoProfessor
04-04-2008, 4:39 PM
Or will you refuse to accept the status quo and stick around to fight the good fight?

It's curious to me that some fellow who ran away to another state has decided to spend his spare time hanging around a California message board urging people to give up the fight, just collapse completely, there's no sense in continuing on.

To follow Kenpo's advice is to hand CA over to the antis for generations, just when the Supreme Court might (probably will) finally give us the tool we need to start reclaiming ground from the antis.

You know, once the antis consolidate their hold on CA, they'll just be coming for the other states next.

So whose side are you on, anyway, Kenpo?

I'm on the side of the Constitution. CA has been overwhelmed in the largest voting sectors that determine state law, and I don't see it changing regardless of Heller. You've got years to get this stuff into the courts after Heller, by then, the laws will have gone into effect already, and fighting them in the liberal environment will be next to impossible. Your only hope is to have the 2nd included in the CA Constitution because all gun laws are based on that precedent anyway.

I moved for more reasons than the gun issues, jobs, ILLEGAL immigration acceptance (see my post on San Fran), gun laws, tax laws, a corruption of LE standards, etc., etc. ad nauseum. I wasn't a native Californian anyway, I had no family there, no children, church, real estate, no vested interest in anything else that tied me to the state for whatever reason. I saw this happening years ago, and I promised myself I would wait until I got my 7th from my instructor before I moved away. I honestly thought I would go back to Texas until I spent some time here in Phoenix.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

bulgron
04-04-2008, 4:41 PM
I am very willing to put up my own money, time, work, etc. however is needed in order to assist in this fight and you are out of line to imply otherwise.

Well, now, you see, all you had to say was that.

Trouble is, there's an awful lot of people wandering around complaining about the state of gun legislation in this state, but who aren't actually willing to do anything about it.

By the way, when you say you're a member of the NRA, can I assume that this means you go to your Members Councils, help them with their projects, and assist them in whatever way you can? It sounds like you're saying you do this. Right?

Also, when you say


I am envisioning an organization whose purpose is to support pro-gun politicians at the state level and to assist those politicians where possible in introducing and supporting pro-gun legislation.


I'm curious as to what you think the NRA is doing in California, if not that.

Please advise.

bulgron
04-04-2008, 4:52 PM
I'm on the side of the Constitution. CA has been overwhelmed in the largest voting sectors that determine state law, and I don't see it changing regardless of Heller. You've got years to get this stuff into the courts after Heller, by then, the laws will have gone into effect already, and fighting them in the liberal environment will be next to impossible. Your only hope is to have the 2nd included in the CA Constitution because all gun laws are based on that precedent anyway.

I moved for more reasons than the gun issues, jobs, ILLEGAL immigration acceptance (see my post on San Fran), gun laws, tax laws, a corruption of LE standards, etc., etc. ad nauseum. I wasn't a native Californian anyway, I had no family there, no children, church, real estate, no vested interest in anything else that tied me to the state for whatever reason. I saw this happening years ago, and I promised myself I would wait until I got my 7th from my instructor before I moved away. I honestly thought I would go back to Texas until I spent some time here in Phoenix.


I have no problem with you deciding to move away. Heck, I'd do the same if it was in the cards for me. That has very little to do with gun laws, btw. I simply loathe living in the Bay Area. If I could move to a rural county in California, I'd be much happier. But it just isn't going to happen anytime soon, so there's no point in focusing on things that are not to be.

What I DO have a problem with is your repeated messages encouraging people to stop fighting Sacramento and instead bail out of state. This is a defeatist attitude, and it's no kind of way to win a fight.

Tell me, I assume you compete. How many matches do you think you'd win if you get into them assuming that you're going to lose?

If people want to leave, more power to them. But standing around saying that the fight is lost, all hope is gone, run away, that's just over the line IMO.

And, by the way, I don't agree that it will take all that long for Heller to fix things. If Heller comes out the right way, I give it 5 years, max, before we get the AW Ban tossed out and G.C. statements declared unconstitutional. Beating back ammo control legislation will be a no-brainer. In due course, we'll have those idiots up on Sacramento boxed in and after that there will be only low-level squirmishes -- not this full-on offensive that the antis are throwing at us right now. Which, by the way, they're doing because they know they're staring at the end of the road for them, so they might as well get some licks in while they can.

Of course, if Heller doesn't come out the way I expect, then things will truly look grim for California. But I'm not willing to stand around all defeatist and afraid until that day arrives.

Rivers
04-04-2008, 4:53 PM
The hostile climate in the legislature is our main obstacle. That's why I suggested something that is logical, not blatantly pro-gun and makes legal sense from a public safety perspective. It would also allow legislators to actually vote for something that would not scream "pro-gun" but still benefit us as a whole. When the LEOs lose this exemption, the whole "safe list" idea is weakened.

Do you really think that this would be shot down? To do that, the anti's would have to defeat something FOR the public safety. Makes for a big contradiction, not that we don't already know they say one thing and do another.

KenpoProfessor
04-04-2008, 5:16 PM
What I DO have a problem with is your repeated messages encouraging people to stop fighting Sacramento and instead bail out of state. This is a defeatist attitude, and it's no kind of way to win a fight.

I may encourage others to leave because removing some of the most valuable resources of CA, the people who love their rights, will leave them with nothing. Once businesses leave with their money and talent, what will CA legislators have left other than their jobs and no state income to pay for their sorry excuses of a life.




If people want to leave, more power to them. But standing around saying that the fight is lost, all hope is gone, run away, that's just over the line IMO.

It's not over the line, it's the truth, at least to me. There was no point fighting it anymore, I didn't have the money or the time to make a stand or statement, as with many people here. Yea, I made the calls, sent some money here and there but it was a futile effort that wore weary of. I made a choice to regain my freedoms without affecting me in a negative way. You can't even imagine the joy of walking up to Police officers with a loaded gun on your hip and not get a strange look. To walk thru the city, malls, grocery stores, protests, etc. expressing the rights every American should have without being harassed by police or scared citizens.


Tell me, I assume you compete. How many matches do you think you'd win if you get into them assuming that you're going to lose?

Nope, I don't compete, I don't like the rules in competitions. When I spar, the person I spar with come to a mutual agreement on what we should or shouldn't do, and it's worked out great.

My posts are not intended to incite jealousy, but awareness of what else is there, and that you don't have to subjugate your self to the Kings and Queens in Sacramento. You have to choose your own path of freedom and liberty, this was mine, and you are on yours.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

bulgron
04-04-2008, 5:29 PM
I may encourage others to leave because removing some of the most valuable resources of CA, the people who love their rights, will leave them with nothing. Once businesses leave with their money and talent, what will CA legislators have left other than their jobs and no state income to pay for their sorry excuses of a life.


Sorry, but your logic breaks down right then and there. California makes it's living on the backs of immigrants and young professionals who don't really understand what liberties they should have under the constitution.

You could convince every gun owning Californian to leave tomorrow, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing to Sacramento. They'll just hire more Mexicans, East Indians, Chinese and Japanese to fill the gap and then go on their merry way.

Even the business leaders in this state would be delighted to see all the gun owners go away. After all, what good is an employee who spends time worrying about non-business-related-things like civil liberties? It's far better to employ easily controlled people who only care about making a little money, and so can be reliably expected to work 60 - 100 hours a week.

What? You think they think we're irreplaceable? HA!

chris
04-04-2008, 5:29 PM
when is time to repeat how this country was formed. i will not say it but read what i have said and you will understand.
we have politicians that have pissed all over what this country stands for. they are the enemy of the U.S. Constitution plain and simple. they have violated that oath time and time again. it's not just about guns it's about TOTAL CONTROL of your lives. 1984 type of control. until the people of this former state of the United States gets back to the union they will contintue to piss all over the Constitution and all it stands for. when will enough be enough? i'm not the only one who thinks this.

i believe in the next few years and i don't care about Heller. that won't mean SH*T here. that this state will make a push for an outright ban on ALL gun ownership!

yes we have OLL's and i'm glad to see them. but in the end we are going to lose and lose it all.

the NRA has done a great job in delaying the inevetable. but this state wants to be the first. and from what it looks like it will.

the legislation this year is allready worse than my nightmares. they were given HUGE victories last year. thanks to GOC and CRPA they screwed us. we had it won and in the end we were ignored like always.

i for one am so F****** sick of these traitors in Krapamento that should be hanged in public for treason. i'm not joking. they treat us like children as we are not smart enough to govern ourselves. BS!!!!!! it's too bad people here in this state are so dumb and blinded by this dictators that they believe anything they say. i'm not saying there are not smart people on this board and elsewhere. we have some very smart people here and i thank you for all you have done. but the trap has allready sprung and it will snap our collective necks soon.

this state is lost to all freedoms and liberties enjoyed by most of the states in this country but here it's gone. and gone forever. we fell asleep, fought amongst ourselves, our arrogace as gun owners here in Kalifornia has done this. we did not fight together and we have lost.

i wish i could move to another state to taste freedom that has been pissed away by traitorous politicians. i have family still here and i truly love this state as i grewe up here. but i want nothing short of the total end of their liberal ways and communist experiment in this state.

end of rant here. this crap in this state is out of control and the bus is going off a cliff too bad the politician (traitors) are not on it!

bulgron
04-04-2008, 5:36 PM
i believe in the next few years and i don't care about Heller. that won't mean SH*T here. that this state will make a push for an outright ban on ALL gun ownership!

I couldn't disagree more.

Remember Roe v. Wade? It forced a lot of states to legalize abortion, even though they DID NOT WANT TO. Remember?

Remember Brown v. Board of Education? It forced a lot of states to integrate their school systems, even though they DID NOT WANT TO.

Well, Heller is our Roe v. Wade. Heller is our Brown v. Board of Education.

I could be wrong. The opinion could still not be what I expect it to be.

But if it is what I expect, then there's a sea change coming for gun rights in CA. Hang in there. We'll know for certain in just a few more months.

KenpoProfessor
04-04-2008, 5:41 PM
Sorry, but your logic breaks down right then and there. California makes it's living on the backs of immigrants and young professionals who don't really understand what liberties they should have under the constitution.

You could convince every gun owning Californian to leave tomorrow, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing to Sacramento. They'll just hire more Mexicans, East Indians, Chinese and Japanese to fill the gap and then go on their merry way.

Even the business leaders in this state would be delighted to see all the gun owners go away. After all, what good is an employee who spends time worrying about non-business-related-things like civil liberties? It's far better to employ easily controlled people who only care about making a little money, and so can be reliably expected to work 60 - 100 hours a week.

What? You think they think we're irreplaceable? HA!

The cheaper the labor, the more the businesses can make, but only if it has a market for it. The cheaper the labor, the less the market will be used because the workers have less money. Houses won't be sold, only rentals, cars, boats, motorcyles, and any sort of luxury item will be out of reach of the cheap labor, ergo, no market No high end car dealers, less gas being used because they wil find alternative means of transportation. You see, it all breaks down, take your money and talent and run, leave them with a third world society and let them clean it up.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

chris
04-04-2008, 5:44 PM
I couldn't disagree more.

Remember Roe v. Wade? It forced a lot of states to legalize abortion, even though they DID NOT WANT TO. Remember?

Remember Brown v. Board of Education? It forced a lot of states to integrate their school systems, even though they DID NOT WANT TO.

Well, Heller is our Roe v. Wade. Heller is our Brown v. Board of Education.

I could be wrong. The opinion could still not be what I expect it to be.

But if it is what I expect, then there's a sea change coming for gun rights in CA. Hang in there. We'll know for certain in just a few more months.

and you expect these dirbags in Krapamento to adhere to that decision? i think not. they never have and never will. look at the crap coming out Krapamento. not just gun legislation there is so much crap they want to jam down or throats it's not even funny anymore. they are the worst people in this country plain and simple!

bulgron
04-04-2008, 5:49 PM
and you expect these dirbags in Krapamento to adhere to that decision? i think not. they never have and never will. look at the crap coming out Krapamento. not just gun legislation there is so much crap they want to jam down or throats it's not even funny anymore. they are the worst people in this country plain and simple!

There's not much the "dirtbags" can do if the federal courts invalidates the bad gun laws, so that no one can be prosecuted under them any more.

They can keep trying to pass the same stupid laws over and over and over again, but once we have one precedent it just becomes quicker and cheaper to knock similar laws off the books.

This is exactly how abortion became legal nation wide, even though a huge number of states fought it tooth and nail.

Have faith. Things are looking up at the moment, all chaos out of Sacramento aside.

packnrat
04-04-2008, 5:49 PM
and were is this for profit company called the nra?

if they are for gun owners rights why are then hiding in the closet?

i received a send us your money in the mail today...how and were did they get my name and address??:eek:

one some years back i was duped by this company, but just got tired of all the junk mail of send us your money.

now if the nra would start spending some of this money here in ca to stop ...nay.........
repeal these bad laws, then i would thing about giving what little i have to them.

but why give money to a worse that paper tiger.
(how big is the paycheck for each board member?)

as seeing as the real power of the state is decided in la and not the rest of ca we are stuck with dupes like arnold.

makes his millions using guns, but then when power is put at his feet he wants to take yours away from you.

:TFH:

.


.

bulgron
04-04-2008, 5:52 PM
The cheaper the labor, the more the businesses can make, but only if it has a market for it. The cheaper the labor, the less the market will be used because the workers have less money. Houses won't be sold, only rentals, cars, boats, motorcyles, and any sort of luxury item will be out of reach of the cheap labor, ergo, no market No high end car dealers, less gas being used because they wil find alternative means of transportation. You see, it all breaks down, take your money and talent and run, leave them with a third world society and let them clean it up.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Why do you assume the labor will be so much cheaper that it will kill house sales, and the sales of luxury items? I assure you, software and hardware engineers with H-1Bs and Green Cards make a damn good living in Silicon Valley.

Plus, there's all the anti-gun lunatics who will just move here so as to be happy (so they think). You think the average Movie-Star-Wannabe is going to NOT COME TO HOLLYWOOD just because they can't have a gun in this state? No, of course not.

The tax base will remain, even if we all leave. Trust me on that.

bulgron
04-04-2008, 6:20 PM
now if the nra would start spending some of this money here in ca to stop ...nay.........
repeal these bad laws, then i would thing about giving what little i have to them.

Hmmm.... Can't imagine what you think the NRA is doing, if not at least working to stop all these crappy laws.

You DO KNOW, don't you, that the NRA had the Lead Ammo Ban and the Microstamping law beat last year, right? You know that, right? It was those other supposedly "pro-gun" organizations that screwed us over.

I'm asking because you apparently have no idea what the NRA is doing in this state.

But, OK, you don't like the NRA. Fine. What are YOU doing to stop or repeal all these bad laws? Please. Tell us what your plan is. If there's a better plan than backing the NRA, I'd love to hear it.

KenpoProfessor
04-04-2008, 6:52 PM
Hmmm.... Can't imagine what you think the NRA is doing, if not at least working to stop all these crappy laws.

You DO KNOW, don't you, that the NRA had the Lead Ammo Ban and the Microstamping law beat last year, right? You know that, right? It was those other supposedly "pro-gun" organizations that screwed us over.

I'm asking because you apparently have no idea what the NRA is doing in this state.

But, OK, you don't like the NRA. Fine. What are YOU doing to stop or repeal all these bad laws? Please. Tell us what your plan is. If there's a better plan than backing the NRA, I'd love to hear it.


You know, you guys keep going on and on about the other gun org. when it was quite obvious the governor signed the bill. You can keep blaming everyone else, but Arnold put his John Henry on it.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

KenpoProfessor
04-04-2008, 6:54 PM
Why do you assume the labor will be so much cheaper that it will kill house sales, and the sales of luxury items? I assure you, software and hardware engineers with H-1Bs and Green Cards make a damn good living in Silicon Valley.

Plus, there's all the anti-gun lunatics who will just move here so as to be happy (so they think). You think the average Movie-Star-Wannabe is going to NOT COME TO HOLLYWOOD just because they can't have a gun in this state? No, of course not.

The tax base will remain, even if we all leave. Trust me on that.

Uh, all those H1 Visas are getting paid much less than their American counterparts, which is why they hire them in the first place :eek:. The more they hire, the less they will pay them.

You'll have no one but the movie industry supporting the state and it won't take long until they decide they can't take it anymore either.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

bulgron
04-04-2008, 8:27 PM
Uh, all those H1 Visas are getting paid much less than their American counterparts, which is why they hire them in the first place :eek:. The more they hire, the less they will pay them.


Having worked alongside of those H1s for a decade and a half now, I can tell you that they don't pay them that much less than an equivalent American. Maybe 10%, and that's just to start. They catch up pretty quickly.

Are there abuses? Sure. But not nearly enough that it's going to matter all that much to the state's revenue stream.

Nodda Duma
04-04-2008, 8:56 PM
I moved for more reasons than the gun issues, jobs, ILLEGAL immigration acceptance (see my post on San Fran), gun laws, tax laws, a corruption of LE standards, etc., etc. ad nauseum. I wasn't a native Californian anyway, I had no family there, no children, church, real estate, no vested interest in anything else that tied me to the state for whatever reason.

Clyde

Why do you insist on getting others to move out of the state specifically *because* of gun issues, then? You should be well aware that, in the same way you had other reasons for moving, many folks here have other reasons for NOT moving.

-Jason

Piper
04-04-2008, 9:30 PM
I hate to pour cold water on your idea, but I think that such a wish list would be vaporware until we can elect some more friendly people to Sacramento.

Remember, it's harder to re-introduce failed ideas than introduce fresh ones with a chance of passing.

I have to absolutely disagree with you, and I have proof to back it up. Do you think California is the only state with anti-gun socialists ? Do you think that other progun legislators just walked in the first time around and got their RKBA bills passed in other states ? ABSOLUTELY NOT ! It took Marion Hammer 7 years straight to get shall issue in Florida and all the while people told her to give up. And there are still pro-gun people in other states fighting like crazy to get their pro-gun bills passed. Last night I heard someone on Cam and Company say that if they don't get it passed this time, they will try next year and the year after that until it's passed.

Shall issue was introduced 10 years ago, and when it didn't pass, those that introduced it just gave up, said it couldn't be done. Well of course it can't be done if you don't keep trying. And that's what the anti's want. It's psychological warfare. Make the opposition defeat themselves while the anti's spend their energy on other lame antigun bills. And that's where it's at. We need to take pages from their playbook and keep pounding them with progun bills. We need to go on the offensive. If the bill loses this year, introduce it next year and the year after that and the year after that. Make them spend their efforts on defending against these bills so they can't spend their energy introducing new ones.

Rivers
04-04-2008, 10:05 PM
THANK YOU!!! Someone finally got the point of this posting! We have to keep trying, even if we get knocked down.

bulgron
04-04-2008, 10:14 PM
I believe the fear is that if we try for shall-issue via the front door, the antis will push to make this a no-issue state and that risk is just unacceptable to the people in the 60% of the counties with good issuance policies.

I think this fear isn't worth bothering with, by the way, because the political backlash from the PTB over losing their CCWs would be more than enough to sweep all the antis out of office. In other words, I think it's an empty threat.

But the mere existence of the threat seems to be enough to keep the gunnies in the legislature from even trying.

Frankly, I think the shortest way to something very much like shall-issue in this state is via the courts. We have to wait for Heller, but if they declare the 2A to be an individual, fundamental right, then it's a short jump to getting Good Cause statements declared unconstitutional (well, we might have to take a side trip to get 14A incorporation, but I think that's actually pretty trivial to get). Once we take Good Cause away from the Sheriffs, then they'll have to issue to anyone with "good moral character" based on 14A equal protection grounds.

It will be checkmate.

Things are looking up folks, all the current nonsense in Sacramento notwithstanding.

Wait and see.

steadyrock
04-04-2008, 10:25 PM
Please advise.


I'm not here to "advise" you, and I will not. I made my post in a sincere effort to get more involved, not to defend myself to the likes of you.

I asked a straightforward question, and you gave me your answer (albeit in a highly uncalled for, confrontational manner that won't be forgotten). I do thank you for your answer (but not your crappy attitude), and now I'm interested in seeing what other Calgunners have to say as well.



Trouble is, there's an awful lot of people wandering around complaining about the state of gun legislation in this state, but who aren't actually willing to do anything about it.


The other trouble is, there are an awful lot of bloviating windbags trolling the forums, waiting for their chance to deliver a keyboard smackdown to anyone who comes across their screen. Get a life.

Librarian
04-05-2008, 12:06 AM
It seems that we're under constant attack with absolutely stupid legislation. I rarely see anything that is pro-2A or pro-gun introduced. That's accurate - very little is. The reason is that the bills never get out of their first committees, usually Assembly Public Safety. The Democrats have the majority, the Democratic leadership determines the committee chairs and memberships, and if a D committee member shows signs of any flexibility, s/he is replaced on the committee so the votes go the way the Speaker wants.

Last one I recall was Jay Lasuer's AB 448 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_448&sess=PREV&house=B&author=la_suer) in 2006. I apologize if I'm slighting some other legislators by forgetting their efforts.

hoffmang
04-05-2008, 11:32 AM
Folks. If any of you have an (R) in your state senate or assembly district you should ask them why they aren't willing to carry pro-gun bills. Everyone here is assuming that NRA isn't trying to get pro-gun bills moving. What you may not realize is that we're having trouble finding ANYONE to take our bills.

The good news is Heller. California is going to look very different in 24 months.

-Gene

CCWFacts
04-05-2008, 12:41 PM
Folks. If any of you have an (R) in your state senate or assembly district you should ask them why they aren't willing to carry pro-gun bills.

Even if you have a D. Yesterday I called up my assembly rep, who is the most anti-gun rep in the entire assembly, and asked to schedule a meeting with his staff to discuss why he should support AJR 46. They said they would schedule it and they would call me back. Will they? I don't know. Will it change their mind? I don't know. But it feels good to take action and it lets them know that there are hard-core RKBAists even in their own districts.

The good news is Heller. California is going to look very different in 24 months.

I sure hope so. If Heller doesn't help us out somehow, I'm afraid that hardcore RKBA activists (like me) will start moving out of the state, and the situation here will be lost. But I'm optimistic; they will find that it's an individual right.

chris
04-05-2008, 3:50 PM
Folks. If any of you have an (R) in your state senate or assembly district you should ask them why they aren't willing to carry pro-gun bills. Everyone here is assuming that NRA isn't trying to get pro-gun bills moving. What you may not realize is that we're having trouble finding ANYONE to take our bills.

The good news is Heller. California is going to look very different in 24 months.

-Gene

it sure will look different in 24 months. let me paint this crappy pic for you. the Dem(liberal traitors):mad: will have more than 2/3 majority taxes will skyorcket, the economy will crap out. a Dem(liberal traitor):mad: will be in the guvs office. and any and all gun control bills will be signed before the ink dries from the printer. RKBA will be a felony and we will all have to move to enjoy freedom.

this state will not and will never follow the feds for anything. RKBA is as alien to them as freedom is to us.:mad:

i'll believe what heller will do when i see it. but i'm not optomistic this year. they are empowered to restrict RKBA like never before because o f last year. i will not count on Arnie doing squat for us.

Paladin
04-05-2008, 5:42 PM
It's good to see you've accepted this reality. I did almost a year ago, and with what I'm seeing, it was the smart choice as a gun owner and CCP holder. I can now make decisions affecting my safety as I see fit, not as the legislators see fit to control.


When will you be moving, or will you accept the status quo and stick around? You're not near the gun nut many here are so I'm not sure it's that big of an issue for you other than wanting Shall Issue CCW.If you want a CCW, you DO NOT have to move out of the PRK, you may only need to move to a different city or county.

The vast majority of people do not factor gun laws in to where they move. They're like all those surveys that tell you "the 100 Best Cities to Live In" where they factor in "cultural centers" and a lot of other hogwash that you might enjoy a couple of times per year, whereas whether you can readily get a CCW can save your behind 24/7. Even those "the 100 Safest Cities . . ." surveys don't factor in exercising your 2nd A RKBA. Ugh!

Taxes and Guns, Baby! That's where it's at.

CoinStar
04-05-2008, 11:37 PM
...where they factor in "cultural centers" and a lot of other hogwash that you might enjoy a couple of times per year...

Or, uhh.... perhaps "hogwash" like the availability of jobs and meaningless stuff like that.

Good luck selling your house in the current real estate nosedive too. It'll make that CCW taste sweet like candy.

Paladin
04-06-2008, 7:59 AM
Or, uhh.... perhaps "hogwash" like the availability of jobs and meaningless stuff like that.

Good luck selling your house in the current real estate nosedive too. It'll make that CCW taste sweet like candy.Did I suggest moving to a location where you cannot get a job? No.

Did I mention anything about moving now? No.

So, what is the point of your post, of your attempt to put words in my mouth, other than to pick a fight? :rolleyes:

Troll alert!

Kestryll
04-06-2008, 8:32 AM
Just heads up.

If this turns in to a flame war I will back track through the thread and adjust the involved accounts accordingly.
Picking a fight, 'clever' comments and insults are still not allowed.

Think of this as a preemptive warning.

CoinStar
04-06-2008, 12:42 PM
Did I suggest moving to a location where you cannot get a job? No.

Did I mention anything about moving now? No.

So, what is the point of your post, of your attempt to put words in my mouth, other than to pick a fight? :rolleyes:

Troll alert!

I'm not your enemy. We are on the same team. Trust me.

However, the premise of your post is unrealistic and does not apply for most people. Sure, if you were to prioritize your life within California with CCW issuance at the top of the list, your choice of residency would be critical. But how realistic is it to suggest (and yes, I read your comment as a suggestion) that people forfeit the roots they've already established and expect to find the same sort of opportunities (like employment) they had somewhere else?

Sure, maybe Yolo county will issue someone a CCW with little hassle, but who's willing to transfer their entire lifestyle, presumably from one of the large metro areas of the state where jobs are concentrated and varied, just for that? And even if they're willing to do so, is it even feasible for most?

So rather than question my motives, look at what you're suggesting as a solution to a particular issue, purely from the point of view of real-world applicabilty.

Just as you objected to the "move out of state" rhetoric that echoes around this subject, I object to the idea of leaving my first choice of residency within the state for the same reason.

Why should I have to do that? I'd rather stick it out and fight for the right with absolutely no compromise.

gmcal
04-06-2008, 2:30 PM
I think pinning our hopes on the Heller outcome is a mistake. There is no gaurantee that the ruling will be to our favor. Why can't some of our supposedly pro-gun lawmakers start introducing pro-gun bills? Lets take some of the oppositions time and energy and make them go on defense for a change. Even if the bill never makes it out of committee, time will be spent on the opposition defeating the bill instead of passing it on. It may only slow them down but it will definitely make it easier for us to only fight 1 or 2 bills instead of 4 or 5.

And I agree with Kenpo Professor. Arnold signed the bill. Remember that if he ever runs for U.S. Senate.

bulgron
04-06-2008, 3:30 PM
I think pinning our hopes on the Heller outcome is a mistake.

I believe that in the short term we have no choice.

Long term, we absolutely need to work to change the political climate in this state so that the politicians aren't so hostile to 2A rights. No question about that.

chris
04-06-2008, 4:56 PM
I believe that in the short term we have no choice.

Long term, we absolutely need to work to change the political climate in this state so that the politicians aren't so hostile to 2A rights. No question about that.

it would be better if the state were to be split up into northern and southern california. there are too many morons and liberals that are politicians, and they are drunk with power and little to no opposition in stopping from the socialist agenda that is plauging this once former state of the union.

bulgron
04-06-2008, 5:00 PM
it would be better if the state were to be split up into northern and southern california. there are too many morons and liberals that are politicians, and they are drunk with power and little to no opposition in stopping from the socialist agenda that is plauging this once former state of the union.

I agree, although I think it should be split into three states.

A far easier goal to achieve is redistricting. If we can get the gerrymandering removed from this state's districts, then that should bring some competition back into politics and therefore some accountability.

CCWFacts
04-06-2008, 5:03 PM
A far easier goal to achieve is redistricting. If we can get the gerrymandering removed from this state's districts, then that should bring some competition back into politics and therefore some accountability.

And Arnie is getting another redistricting initiative on the ballot. Last one failed; I hope this one will succeed. Arnie is striving to save the R party in this state. His secular political positions are part of that, and redistricting is also part of that. Will he succeed? I don't know; the R party seems to have chronic head-in-derrière disease in this state.

hoffmang
04-06-2008, 5:19 PM
I think pinning our hopes on the Heller outcome is a mistake.

Why? With Kenedy we have 5 votes for the 2A. All of the court loses in California around anti-gun laws were premised on the 2A having no actual individual right. To not understand the long term (and short) implications of that change is to be tilting at windmills.

Read this page and think about what even a 5-4 individual rights decision in Heller means to it's analysis: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2amend.php

-Gene

Paladin
04-06-2008, 8:21 PM
Why? With Kenedy we have 5 votes for the 2A. All of the court loses in California around anti-gun laws were premised on the 2A having no actual individual right. To not understand the long term (and short) implications of that change is to be tilting at windmills.

Read this page and think about what even a 5-4 individual rights decision in Heller means to it's analysis: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2amend.php

-GeneYep, a win for our side will be a seismic shift in our favor. Nonetheless, and I'm sure you'll agree, Heller won't bring us into our "Promised Land" (promised by our Founding Fathers) by itself. There will still be a big political job that will have to be done by us (along w/the legal follow up on Heller). But the stronger Heller comes down on our side, the easier both the legal and political follow up is for us.

I noted how the AG uses the same language ("reasonable" gun control), that Hillary and Obama are using. It implies that "If you disagree with my position on gun control, you are being unreasonable." Perhaps our side should come out for "reasonable" gun control too? The only difference is that our side will say that most of the gun control laws we have now (esp in the PRK) are unreasonable. By definition, any gun control law which has not been proven to significantly reduce crime is unreasonable.

Sounds "reasonable" to me. ;)

yellowfin
04-06-2008, 9:50 PM
There is no such thing as "reasonable gun control." Even more insulting is their calling it "common sense." There is absolutely zero sense, and outside of the PRK it isn't common, either.

gmcal
04-06-2008, 11:13 PM
Why? With Kenedy we have 5 votes for the 2A. All of the court loses in California around anti-gun laws were premised on the 2A having no actual individual right. To not understand the long term (and short) implications of that change is to be tilting at windmills.

Read this page and think about what even a 5-4 individual rights decision in Heller means to it's analysis: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2amend.php

-Gene


I seem to remember we had the microstamping bill "in the bag" also. And if I'm reading correctly we can't just have a majority opinion that rules that it is an individual right, but one with strict scrutiny or else the anti gun states can carry on with business as usual. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

I am duty bound and constitutionally obligated to defend and enforce the law as written by our state legislature and explained by our courts. And, while I am personally convinced that the Second Amendment was indeed intended to provide some measure of entitlement for individuals to own firearms, the degree of that entitlement, and the extent to which it must be balanced with the state's right and responsibility to protect public health and safety, is still being interpreted by our nation's courts. And I believe that the interpretation of most courts, which holds that the states have the power to regulate firearms possession and usage within their boundaries, is both wise and correct. As a legislator, I supported reasonable measures to regulate firearms over the years. As California's Attorney General, I strongly support the system of government which we enjoy, and which I am sworn to preserve and protect, and I will continue to keep my promise to the people of California to fairly and fully enforce our laws, and to defend the laws our representatives have enacted.

Sounds like he is defending CA gun laws to me.

bwiese
04-06-2008, 11:53 PM
I seem to remember we had the microstamping bill "in the bag" also.

That, and the lead ammo bill (821) were ENTIRELY due to GOC/Sam Paredes idiocy.

They would've been quietly vetoed had he not created his little drama.

They were indeed 'in the bag' and people supposedly on our side screwed the pooch.

hoffmang
04-06-2008, 11:59 PM
I seem to remember we had the microstamping bill "in the bag" also. And if I'm reading correctly we can't just have a majority opinion that rules that it is an individual right, but one with strict scrutiny or else the anti gun states can carry on with business as usual. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.



Sounds like he is defending CA gun laws to me.

He was defending CA gun laws based on the 2A not being an individual right. That changes after Heller. Also, those 5 at SCOTUS aren't going anywhere fast and they like overturning the 9th Circuit. Even if we don't win immediately in the 9th (and I expect we will - the court has changed over the last decade), SCOTUS will be more than happy to make the most egregious of CA laws go away. We don't need strict scrutiny at all once the panoply of individual constitutional rights are available to us.

-Gene

gmcal
04-07-2008, 12:31 AM
Bill,

I've read that before, my point is that someone can change their mind for any reason. It is likely we only have 5 on our side. If one changes their mind or Kennedy is just not fully convinced by our arguement, then we lose.

Gene,

I'm skeptical that real progress can be made here in CA if it is not a decisive ruling that states the Second Amendment is an individual right with strict scrutiny. I think without a decisive ruling that pretty much tells the antis to knock off their crap, the jokers in Sacramento can keep passing bad laws at a faster rate then we would be able to defeat them in court. I'm not as sharp as you are when it comes the courts and politics of CA gun laws, so I could be way off. If we only get an individual right ruling I hope it will be enough to wake up the gun owners in CA and get them involved, while giving our pro-gun lawmakers the boost they need to go on the offensive and start introducing pro-gun bills.

yellowfin
04-07-2008, 6:55 AM
It is not so much a Supreme Court ruling that is needed but a recognition of that right by the people here themselves. The problem is not that such legislation is permissable, but that it has been permitted. You didn't draw a line in the sand and now you're looking for a bail out.

hoffmang
04-07-2008, 10:33 AM
Such legislation wasn't permitted. Such legislation kept getting overturned in the Court to then be put back at the Appeals level due to the lack of the Second Amendment in this state.

Things are going to change.

-Gene

Riodog
04-07-2008, 11:36 AM
With the disclaimer that I am not in the same league as some of our more astute legal minds here.

I am not that optimistic that Heller is going to be the earth-shaking decision that will end all of the woes of California. Not withstanding the outcome that it will probably be decided that it is an "individual right", I just can't see SCOTUS coming out with a decision that would throw that much turmoil out for every state to have to deal with all of their gun laws, and flood our already plugged up courts with more cases. I can see a very limited, narrow decision as they try to decide what is the correct interpretation (we all know what that is) while at the same time allowing some control of the situation.

I'm also not optomistic that the future of California is all that rosy. Not only have the dem's had a strangle hold on this state for a long while but look at the demographics of the population and of the future voting block.

I, personally, don't see much of a change in the "personality" of this state until we've had a total breakdown in the way this state gov't operates. It will probably be monetary, with an end to the social programs that all of the uneducated voters seem to hold so near and dear. Followed by massive tax hikes that put the hurt on everyone and many more businesses leaving the state.

JMHO, which isn't worth the time it took me to write it but I had some time to kill.
Rio

yellowfin
04-07-2008, 12:31 PM
We will change the personality of this state. We will change the way the people think about gun laws, about the people who push them, and what the role of firearms is. We will accomplish this by comparison and by getting people to ask the right questions.

hoffmang
04-07-2008, 1:35 PM
There is a simple reason that Heller will have an outsize impact on California. California has no RKBA in its state constitution. As such, stuff that never would have passed muster in say North Carolina that has an RKBA in the state Constitution, passed and made it through challenges here. Add that fact to the combined fact that LCAV and Brady use this as their test ground and that the Supremes like nothing better than overturning the 9th Circuit and you have one heck of an interesting coming set of battles. Now we're also backstopped by Kennedy who doesn't have a lot of respect for the lawmakers of his old home state... Heller will not change your local FFL overnight, but within 24 months, things thought impossible will become common place.

-Gene

bulgron
04-07-2008, 1:50 PM
Heller will not change your local FFL overnight, but within 24 months, things thought impossible will become common place.

-Gene

Including CCW in the coastal counties? :D

CCWFacts
04-07-2008, 1:53 PM
Including CCW in the coastal counties? :D

That's my question also.

Riodog
04-07-2008, 2:31 PM
Gene, Yellowfin2, I sincerely hope you are right and I'm wrong.

"It is not so much a Supreme Court ruling that is needed but a recognition of that right by the people here themselves".

While I agree with your premise it's not going to happen with the demographics of this state. You can talk until you are blue in the face and explain in great detail and you are not going to reach the masses of say, the Catholic church for example. As I stated above, the people that are populating this state at this point in time are not interested in the same things that we are. Krestyll, I'm not being rude just stating facts. I'm not going to list the many reasons that have been expressed on many different forums and venues as I really don't feel like getting into it with anyone and this is NOT a very tolerant forum.

Rio

bulgron
04-07-2008, 2:50 PM
Gene, Yellowfin2, I sincerely hope you are right and I'm wrong.

"It is not so much a Supreme Court ruling that is needed but a recognition of that right by the people here themselves".

While I agree with your premise it's not going to happen with the demographics of this state. You can talk until you are blue in the face and explain in great detail and you are not going to reach the masses of say, the Catholic church for example. As I stated above, the people that are populating this state at this point in time are not interested in the same things that we are. Krestyll, I'm not being rude just stating facts. I'm not going to list the many reasons that have been expressed on many different forums and venues as I really don't feel like getting into it with anyone and this is NOT a very tolerant forum.

Rio

The reason why there's a Bill of Rights is exactly because of the sort of situation that we find ourselves in. We don't live in a democracy, you know, where the popular opinion always wins. Instead, we live in a Constitutional Republic in which individual rights win, regardless of the how popular (or not) those rights might be.

That our 2A rights were allowed to rust as much as they have is the great shame of our Republic. The fault lies equally within the courts, the government, and the people themselves who elected the representatives that sought to dead-letter the 2A.

But now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to right this great wrong. I believe they will do so, and in so doing will extend the same protection from the courts as much of the Bill of Rights also enjoy.

All it takes now is a bit of patience, a modicum of faith and a big heaping of finesse in the follow-on court battles, and things should be much improved in this state over the current situation.

The first thing I want out of Heller is a recognition that the 2A really is an individual right and that it should enjoy the same sort of protection from the courts as do the other, more popular, amendments.

The one thing I want out of Heller's children is for Good Cause statements to be declared unconstitutional, or at least gutted to the point where they cannot be used deny private citizens of their right to keep and BEAR arms.

If we get those things, then the rest of this nonsense will simply fade away, because what politician is really going to go on record as wanting to abridge American's constitutional liberties?

I think it can and will happen, and so should you. :)

KenpoProfessor
04-07-2008, 3:13 PM
That, and the lead ammo bill (821) were ENTIRELY due to GOC/Sam Paredes idiocy.

They would've been quietly vetoed had he not created his little drama.

They were indeed 'in the bag' and people supposedly on our side screwed the pooch.

Doesn't matter how you try to spin it Bill, Arnold signed the bill, and that's where the buck stops. Even if Sam Parades had pissed in Arnold's soup, he still had a free choice to sign or veto.

Sounds like the NRA and GOC need to sit down and strategize so this doesn't happen in the future, but, it's still on the Gov..

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Hopi
04-07-2008, 3:33 PM
Doesn't matter how you try to spin it Bill, Arnold signed the bill, and that's where the buck stops. Even if Sam Parades had pissed in Arnold's soup, he still had a free choice to sign or veto.

Sounds like the NRA and GOC need to sit down and strategize so this doesn't happen in the future, but, it's still on the Gov..

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Influence-politics weigh heavy on the job security of our elected reps. Reference Perata's recall efforts if you must.

Not everything is black and white in CA. Things aren't as simple here as they may seem in AZ. Those that recognize this reality are sticking to our guns, those that can't handle the complexities, well, I'm sure you have some ex-pats as neighbors......