PDA

View Full Version : CA Supreme Court denies SF Handgun Appeal!


hoffmang
04-09-2008, 6:50 PM
All,

Prop H is now fully and finally dead. NRA-ILA is reporting (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10872) that the California Supreme Court did not grant an appeal in the case and that the court of appeals decision will serve as a final ruling.

Handgun bans are dead in California absent AB 2566's (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2566&year=2008) passage.

I've confirmed it with TMLLP! Congrats to NRA, TMLLP, and others on the excellent work!

-Gene

dustoff31
04-09-2008, 7:01 PM
This is great news!!

But there must be some mistake, the NRA never does anything meaningful. Any number of people here will tell you, just ask them.

jamesob
04-09-2008, 7:10 PM
im sure they will take all the credit.

Stanze
04-09-2008, 7:13 PM
Good news. :)

Repeal the AW ban (Roberti-Roos and SB-23) next!

ETA: While they're at it, repeal AB-50 and the "safe" handgun law!

Paladin
04-09-2008, 7:41 PM
I just got my email CAL-ERT re it. Great news!

:party:

It really shouldn't have been surprising, but with the PRK Sup Ct, you never know.

Now we've got to make sure Loni Hancock's new bill to allow local gov't to pass gun control laws never sees the light of day.
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab2566
:xwing: AB2566:59:

tombinghamthegreat
04-09-2008, 7:42 PM
This some good news but while we are at it why not stop the ammo bill, microstamping, AWB, HSC requirement, allow 21 year olds to buy handguns.......

hoffmang
04-09-2008, 7:49 PM
Because it is not yet (but almost) time for it.

-Gene

oaklander
04-09-2008, 8:04 PM
Niiiice!

In a post-Heller world, we won't even have to rely on preemption anymore.

Woo-hoo!!!

69Mach1
04-09-2008, 8:15 PM
One more beat down for San Fran. Yeah!

rkt88edmo
04-09-2008, 8:19 PM
huzzah

bulgron
04-09-2008, 8:28 PM
Well, that's something anyway.

I wonder how many more times the City of San Francisco will decide to waste millions of taxpayer's dollars on hopeless legal activities such as this one?

MKE
04-09-2008, 8:34 PM
This some good news but while we are at it why not stop the ammo bill, microstamping, AWB, HSC requirement, allow 21 year olds to buy handguns.......

While we're at it - we need to get rid of the "10 days waiting period" or reduce it to 3 days, eliminate the "one handgun per 30 days" rule, and finally, make California a "shall issue" state. :D

bulgron
04-09-2008, 8:39 PM
While we're at it - we need to get rid of the "10 days waiting period" or reduce it to 3 days, eliminate the "one handgun per 30 days" rule, and finally, make California a "shall issue" state. :D

While we're at it, can we also get a legislature that knows how to balance a budget, as well as politicians that put the interests of the people above their own personal self-interests? :rolleyes:

MKE
04-09-2008, 8:44 PM
While we're at it, can we also get a legislature that knows how to balance a budget, as well as politicians that put the interests of the people above their own personal self-interests? :rolleyes:

I'm afraid this will never happen anytime soon.:mad:

I did neglect to mention one more idiotic law -- how about eliminating the stupid handgun roster?

tophatjones
04-09-2008, 8:55 PM
Hoorah!:D

Socal858
04-09-2008, 8:59 PM
woo

shall issue better be next

CCWFacts
04-09-2008, 9:09 PM
I'd like to congratulate the citizens and taxpayers of San Francisco. At a time when SF's schools are rotting, SF's public housing projects are unsafe disasters, SF has a projected budget deficit of about $300mil, some might question the wisdom of probably spending about $1mil on legal fees in a hopeless quest to defend a law that everyone their admitted was nothing more than a feel-good measure. SF taxpayers, who cares how many cop-years, teacher-years, pothole repairs, etc, that money could have paid for; you did the right thing because it's about feeling, and it's about providing big legal fees for some law firm that's connected to Mayor Newsom. Carry on, SF!

Knight
04-09-2008, 9:26 PM
What effect does this have on Berkeley's attempt to pass their own handgun ban?

dfletcher
04-09-2008, 9:29 PM
I'd like to congratulate the citizens and taxpayers of San Francisco. At a time when SF's schools are rotting, SF's public housing projects are unsafe disasters, SF has a projected budget deficit of about $300mil, some might question the wisdom of probably spending about $1mil on legal fees in a hopeless quest to defend a law that everyone their admitted was nothing more than a feel-good measure. SF taxpayers, who cares how many cop-years, teacher-years, pothole repairs, etc, that money could have paid for; you did the right thing because it's about feeling, and it's about providing big legal fees for some law firm that's connected to Mayor Newsom. Carry on, SF!

I agree with you 100%. But this is SF and consider what they most likely would have done with that money. The city would not have spent money on those common sense programs that everyone would benefit from, they'd hand out more benefits to the undeserving or otherwise promote the nanny state. Personally, I prefer they spend the money on a losing effort instead whatever other lloney program they could dream up.

hoffmang
04-09-2008, 9:29 PM
Well, that's something anyway.

I wonder how many more times the City of San Francisco will decide to waste millions of taxpayer's dollars on hopeless legal activities such as this one?

Just wait until they get the fees motion from TMLLP and NRA.

No city or county in California can ban guns unless the law is changed so Berkeley is hosed.

-Gene

tombinghamthegreat
04-09-2008, 9:30 PM
So SF tried to ban guns and is now officially a sanctuary city. Sad to see a city be that screw up and yet the city alone wields a lot of political power in the state.

CCWFacts
04-09-2008, 10:24 PM
Just wait until they get the fees motion from TMLLP and NRA.

That will be great. It means that the NRA will have more money for more fun lawsuits. SF taxpayers, meanwhile, will have less money for things like police, roads and schools. But SF tax payers don't care about such things, because SF is heading towards bankruptcy anyway.

By the way, read the comments on the SFGate article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL&tsp=1) on this. They are almost all strongly in favor of gun rights, and strongly pissed off about their city leadership, for wasting money, doing something that is hopeless, and trying to take away their rights.

gosparx
04-09-2008, 11:00 PM
But if all the stupid anti-gun laws are ever actually eliminated or even reduced (one gun per month, handgun roster, hi-cap magazines etc)... I'll go broke!!! Right now, the only real 'will power' I have is that the State prohibits me from buying all the fun stuff I want!!!

C.G.
04-09-2008, 11:03 PM
Great day! First Noveske .308 lowers come out and now this!:party:

Steyr_223
04-09-2008, 11:59 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

(04-09) 17:19 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The court's unanimous order was a victory for the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers a day after the measure passed with 58 percent of the vote in November 2005. The initiative has never taken effect.

The ordinance, Proposition H, would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, exempting only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It would have also prohibited the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco.

Lower courts ruled that the measure interfered with a statewide system of gun regulation, which bars certain types of weapons and allows others. The rulings did not address the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the focus of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

The state courts recognized that "law-abiding citizens are part of the solution, not part of the problem of violent crime," said Chuck Michel, lawyer for the plaintiffs in the NRA suit. "The authority of local cities to over-regulate firearms is very limited."

Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the court's action was disappointing.

"As violence continues to be a pervasive problem in our city, we hope that we can explore other ways to abate the prevalence of handguns on our streets," she said.

In seeking state Supreme Court review, Herrera's office urged the justices to declare that "local governments retain significant, meaningful ... power to protect their residents against gun violence."

The city's lawyers said the use of guns in San Francisco homicides is rising, accounting for 61 percent of all killings in 2001 and 83 percent in 2005, and is particularly high in poor and minority neighborhoods. Gun violence costs San Francisco at least $31.2 million a year for hospital care, police and fire response and jail expenses, the city said.

But the courts said the ordinance was beyond the powers of local government.

Upholding a judge's June 2006 ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said state law left room for some municipal gun control - such as bans on the sale or possession of firearms on public fairgrounds - but "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

The court relied on its own 1982 ruling striking down a San Francisco ordinance that would have prohibited handgun possession by anyone in the city limits. Drafters of Prop. H sought to comply with the ruling by limiting the ban to city residents.

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.

The court also said a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap pistols known as Saturday-night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns.

The appeals judges also refused San Francisco's request to allow enforcement of Prop. H's ban on the manufacturer or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the measure to narrow its scope.

The case is San Francisco vs. Fiscal, S160968.

ke6guj
04-10-2008, 12:05 AM
:dupe: :D

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=95698

jjperl
04-10-2008, 1:25 AM
While we're at it - we need to get rid of the "10 days waiting period" or reduce it to 3 days, eliminate the "one handgun per 30 days" rule, and finally, make California a "shall issue" state. :D


Yes! with the exception that that there should be no waiting period, period.

AfricanHunter
04-10-2008, 4:10 AM
Just wait until they get the fees motion from TMLLP and NRA.

No city or county in California can ban guns unless the law is changed so Berkeley is hosed.

-Gene

Ha! When will we know if they are successful?

Good Job to the NRA and TMLLP

UBFRAGD
04-10-2008, 6:17 AM
Can't believe it!! A judiciary smackdown on SF!! This really caught me by surprise!! This is cause for celebration, I'm going to the range after work!! Maybe SF is part of the USA after all!!

Woo hoo!!!

NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA

My cold dead hands too............

Zhukov
04-10-2008, 6:27 AM
In the SF Gate article, it stated this:

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.

What exactly are they referring to about the judge's permission?

GenLee
04-10-2008, 7:53 AM
Sweet....... thanks for the update Gene

ohsmily
04-10-2008, 8:04 AM
:dupe: :D

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=95698

Nice. Steyr is too post happy. Shut him down. ;)

WokMaster1
04-10-2008, 8:05 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

(04-09) 17:19 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The court's unanimous order was a victory for the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers a day after the measure passed with 58 percent of the vote in November 2005. The initiative has never taken effect.

The ordinance, Proposition H, would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, exempting only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It would have also prohibited the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco.

Lower courts ruled that the measure interfered with a statewide system of gun regulation, which bars certain types of weapons and allows others. The rulings did not address the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the focus of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

The state courts recognized that "law-abiding citizens are part of the solution, not part of the problem of violent crime," said Chuck Michel, lawyer for the plaintiffs in the NRA suit. "The authority of local cities to over-regulate firearms is very limited."

Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the court's action was disappointing.

"As violence continues to be a pervasive problem in our city, we hope that we can explore other ways to abate the prevalence of handguns on our streets," she said.

In seeking state Supreme Court review, Herrera's office urged the justices to declare that "local governments retain significant, meaningful ... power to protect their residents against gun violence."

The city's lawyers said the use of guns in San Francisco homicides is rising, accounting for 61 percent of all killings in 2001 and 83 percent in 2005, and is particularly high in poor and minority neighborhoods. Gun violence costs San Francisco at least $31.2 million a year for hospital care, police and fire response and jail expenses, the city said.

But the courts said the ordinance was beyond the powers of local government.

Upholding a judge's June 2006 ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said state law left room for some municipal gun control - such as bans on the sale or possession of firearms on public fairgrounds - but "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

The court relied on its own 1982 ruling striking down a San Francisco ordinance that would have prohibited handgun possession by anyone in the city limits. Drafters of Prop. H sought to comply with the ruling by limiting the ban to city residents.

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.
The court also said a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap pistols known as Saturday-night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns.

The appeals judges also refused San Francisco's request to allow enforcement of Prop. H's ban on the manufacturer or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the measure to narrow its scope.

The case is San Francisco vs. Fiscal, S160968.


The story might be dupe but the details are not. See hi-lighted line. If the Fong & Hennesy will not issue a CCW to it's residents, does it mean that one can appeal through a judge? Interesting.... Can the "right people" chime in?

savageevo
04-10-2008, 8:35 AM
good point. So does that mean that a judge has the authority to issue a CCW also. It is not clear because it states "to carry guns in public" it didn't say Concealed.

ibanezfoo
04-10-2008, 8:46 AM
The court also said a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap pistols known as Saturday-night specials...

This is good news but this line here... Isn't this incorrect? Isn't Saturday night special actually a racist thing and a specifically a .38 snub nose revolver? I thought they were called "Saturday night ni**er town specials" and people (media) still throw this term around like its no big deal....

-Bryan

1911_sfca
04-10-2008, 8:50 AM
From my cold dead hands!!

yellowfin
04-10-2008, 9:24 AM
It is a sad condition of the people here where such a small improvement seems a huge victory. "Congratulations, you lost eight of your toes to gangrene, but we did save the other two!"

Sgt Raven
04-10-2008, 9:32 AM
In the SF Gate article, it stated this:

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.

What exactly are they referring to about the judge's permission?

IIRC, if a judge issues a restraining order for your protection he could also issue an order for the local CLEO to issue you a CCW too.

WokMaster1
04-10-2008, 9:35 AM
good point. So does that mean that a judge has the authority to issue a CCW also. It is not clear because it states "to carry guns in public" it didn't say Concealed.

Open carry & loaded. You'll probably have a wear a badge & vest that says "Judge Judy approved".....something like that..:D

hoffmang
04-10-2008, 9:41 AM
It is a sad condition of the people here where such a small improvement seems a huge victory. "Congratulations, you lost eight of your toes to gangrene, but we did save the other two!"

Yellowfin,

Would you prefer we lose? Sounds like it. I bet you're an absolutist who told his boss this morning that if he didn't make you a millionaire today you quit, right?

-Gene

yellowfin
04-10-2008, 10:11 AM
Actually no. I am an absolutist when it comes to firearms rights, and I refuse to acknowledge the status quo as anything good. Neither should you. I know that my work situation is approximately the same as it would be anywhere else in the country irrespective of what state or county I happen to be in at the time. If I work harder and/or longer and use my brain a bit, I get more from it--I don't ever ask or expect more than that. Anything to the contrary is unacceptable. The same with firearms rights. I do not cater to any assertion that expectation of less freedom to own and carry and use what I choose here as opposed to anywhere else in the country is at all acceptable. I came from a free state and I do not take kindly to being treated as a criminal for the simple act of moving here. The ceaseless cop outs of "oh, that's the political reality" nauseate me. It is contemptible that such be the attitude of Americans. The mentality of a slave is not something compatible with my personal beliefs.

Liberty1
04-10-2008, 10:18 AM
Any estimates of what SF will have to pay TMLLP? :D:D:D

bulgron
04-10-2008, 10:21 AM
Any estimates of what SF will have to pay TMLLP? :D:D:D

Please excuse my ignorance. What is TMLLP?

Liberty1
04-10-2008, 10:23 AM
Please excuse my ignorance. What is TMLLP?

Introducing the "Slayers of San Francisco", the "Pontificators of Personal Self-Defense Rights", "The Crusaders On The Long Beach Coast" , the Victorious firm of http://www.trutanichmichel.com/

USN CHIEF
04-10-2008, 10:30 AM
Good news indeed.. I saw the email from the NRA, but I taught that they just wanted more money...

jacques
04-10-2008, 11:04 AM
This is all good. It would seem things are trending to go our way.

chris
04-10-2008, 11:48 AM
i'll believe things are going our way when roberti-roos and SB23 are gone. and if heller goes our way. nothing is done until it is done. this is the PRK and they don't care what the rules are they will introduce it no matter what happens.

GSequoia
04-10-2008, 12:00 PM
Jesus Christ why can't people understand that incremental victories are victories after all?!


There is, and never will be, a magic light switch that goes from restrictions to full freedoms in no time.

If you want proof look at the civil rights movement, notice how that went by small steps?

AxonGap
04-10-2008, 12:29 PM
I sense major irritation and outrage by the Brady crusade over this! With this news and the Olympic torch passing through town, SF's professional activists will have no choice but to go on a protracted peace rampage!

Red_5
04-10-2008, 1:18 PM
Fantastic!

chris
04-10-2008, 1:53 PM
this is not going to be the last time crap like this is introduced. they will attempt to dupe the legislature and the next guv into signing it. it's only a matter of time with these liberal A*************.

we won today but will we be screwed at the end of the year?



like we were last year!

Fjold
04-10-2008, 2:38 PM
It's nice to see the checks that we are sending in are doing something good.

GuyW
04-10-2008, 2:47 PM
Cities don't run school districts...


I'd like to congratulate the citizens and taxpayers of San Francisco. At a time when SF's schools are rotting, SF's public housing projects are unsafe disasters, SF has a projected budget deficit of about $300mil, some might question the wisdom of probably spending about $1mil on legal fees in a hopeless quest to defend a law that everyone their admitted was nothing more than a feel-good measure. SF taxpayers, who cares how many cop-years, teacher-years, pothole repairs, etc, that money could have paid for; you did the right thing because it's about feeling, and it's about providing big legal fees for some law firm that's connected to Mayor Newsom. Carry on, SF!

CCWFacts
04-10-2008, 3:04 PM
Cities don't run school districts...

SF is in a weird (unique) situation, in many ways. It is the only consolidated city-county (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_city-county) in California. As such, it doesn't have a city council, for example. I assume that the county and the city have the same budget because they're the same entity.

And don't cities have schools? I'm quite certain that my city's school isn't part of LAUSD? I'm not up on the details of this.

hoffmang
04-10-2008, 4:59 PM
we won today but will we be screwed at the end of the year?


like we were last year!

By our own team.



Fixed it for ya.

-Gene

UBFRAGD
04-10-2008, 5:53 PM
HaHa try to read that Yellowfin post while watching the Channel 2 News at 5pm in SF, head asplodin' from the contrasts.

CSDGuy
04-10-2008, 6:03 PM
SF is in a weird (unique) situation, in many ways. It is the only consolidated city-county (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_city-county) in California. As such, it doesn't have a city council, for example. I assume that the county and the city have the same budget because they're the same entity.

And don't cities have schools? I'm quite certain that my city's school isn't part of LAUSD? I'm not up on the details of this.
School Districts are usually INDEPENDENT Special Districts. Their boundaries wander far and wide. They typically do not answer to or get funding directly from cities. They may get some funding from a County Office of Education though. The bulk of their budget would probably come from the State.

bulgron
04-10-2008, 6:06 PM
HaHa try to read that Yellowfin post while watching the Channel 2 News at 5pm in SF, head asplodin' from the contrasts.

Why? What were they saying on Channel 2 at 5 pm in SF?

RossRinSD
04-10-2008, 9:00 PM
While we're at it, can we also get a legislature that knows how to balance a budget, as well as politicians that put the interests of the people above their own personal self-interests? :rolleyes:

and what about world peace while we are wishing

hoffmang
04-10-2008, 11:55 PM
Actually no. I am an absolutist when it comes to firearms rights, and I refuse to acknowledge the status quo as anything good.

It is very interesting to me how you are an absolutist when the cost of being an absolutists isn't directly yours, but yet you don't hold your employer to absolutist principles. Might it be that he can push absolutist costs back on you where the costs of your political positions are externalized and spread upon others?

-Gene

oaklander
04-11-2008, 12:05 AM
Now that you have made it known that you don't "cater" to California's guns laws, what have you done to change them?

Nobody on this board likes California gun laws. That's why we are here. Not only do we talk about them, we work to change them.

Are you a member of the NRA?
Do you attend MC meetings?
Do you volunteer at gun shows to sign up new NRA members?
Do you contribute to the ILA?
Do you support your local gun shop?
Do you contact your local and state representatives on gun issues?
Do you help educate other California gun owners on gun issues?

Many of us here do all of the above, and more. You really need to understand the history of this board, and the history of California gun laws, to see how much progress we have made.

Actually no. I am an absolutist when it comes to firearms rights, and I refuse to acknowledge the status quo as anything good. Neither should you. I know that my work situation is approximately the same as it would be anywhere else in the country irrespective of what state or county I happen to be in at the time. If I work harder and/or longer and use my brain a bit, I get more from it--I don't ever ask or expect more than that. Anything to the contrary is unacceptable. The same with firearms rights. I do not cater to any assertion that expectation of less freedom to own and carry and use what I choose here as opposed to anywhere else in the country is at all acceptable. I came from a free state and I do not take kindly to being treated as a criminal for the simple act of moving here. The ceaseless cop outs of "oh, that's the political reality" nauseate me. It is contemptible that such be the attitude of Americans. The mentality of a slave is not something compatible with my personal beliefs.

bulgron
04-11-2008, 9:39 AM
Now that you have made it known that you don't "cater" to California's guns laws, what have you done to change them?

Nobody on this board likes California gun laws. That's why we are here. Not only do we talk about them, we work to change them.

Are you a member of the NRA?
Do you attend MC meetings?
Do you volunteer at gun shows to sign up new NRA members?
Do you contribute to the ILA?
Do you support your local gun shop?
Do you contact your local and state representatives on gun issues?
Do you help educate other California gun owners on gun issues?

Many of us here do all of the above, and more. You really need to understand the history of this board, and the history of California gun laws, to see how much progress we have made.

Oaklander,

I can tell you that yellowfin is quite heavily involved in this fight. There's no need to smack him upside the head with this diatribe.

In fact, I find yellowfin's reaction to California gun laws quite interesting. As an outsider newly moved to California, I believe he's giving us an honest reflection of just how outrageous most of the rest of the country would find CA's gun laws if they were imposed on the "free states."

GSequoia
04-11-2008, 9:45 AM
Oaklander,

I can tell you that yellowfin is quite heavily involved in this fight. There's no need to smack him upside the head with this diatribe.

In fact, I find yellowfin's reaction to California gun laws quite interesting. As an outsider newly moved to California, I believe he's giving us an honest reflection of just how outrageous most of the rest of the country would find CA's gun laws if they were imposed on the "free states."

His expectations are not realistic and in making such a stink that the only thing acceptable is total and complete canceling of all gun legislation (and anything else is just disguised failure) he is hurting the cause.

yellowfin
04-11-2008, 10:47 AM
NRA? Yes. MC? Yes. Sign up new members? Yes, including all of my family, working on the inlaws, starting to work in my apartment complex. Contact legislators? Yep. Write them letters? Check. Call them? Yep, at least weekly. Have every single person in the Assembly in my phone, listed by committee, and on emailing lists to where I can email everyone with any hand in gun legislation from my phone wherever I am, daily? Yep. Compiling lists of everyone running for public office within 50 miles of me? Yep. Participate in SCCC? Yep. Out of state CCW's, funding and thus voting for it, so to speak, in other states to keep it open elsewhere. Keeping in touch with my former senators--one of whom my brother worked for. Getting constitutional opinions and case law from former professors and current professors I know teaching political science and business law. Keep up to date memberships with Ducks Unlimited and National Wild Turkey Federation in addition to NRA.


Got anymore questions?

Realistic expectations were in the 1890's that we'd be burning candles and kerosene for light for another 1000 years. Realistic expectations in 1900 were that every town would have one telephone at most. The creaters of the first computers were saying that realistically there would never be need for more than maybe 10 in the whole world. Realistically in 1776 the people who started this country would have been shot or hanged 6 months later. Realism hasn't gotten humanity anywhere. Sure you need a bit to get from day to day, but not from where we are to where we can be. Moderates accomplish nothing--look to our Congress for all the evidence you need there. I for one prefer possibility. And principles. The idea of principles seems to be looked upon as antiquated these days, apparently dangerous too.

oaklander
04-11-2008, 10:59 AM
Sorry. I wasn't trying to come down on you - I was just trying to figure out where you were coming from.

Glad you are in the fight!

My apologies if my prior post seemed harsh, it wasn't my intention.



NRA? Yes. MC? Yes. Sign up new members? Yes, including all of my family, working on the inlaws, starting to work in my apartment complex. Contact legislators? Yep. Write them letters? Check. Call them? Yep, at least weekly. Have every single person in the Assembly in my phone, listed by committee, and on emailing lists to where I can email everyone with any hand in gun legislation from my phone wherever I am, daily? Yep. Compiling lists of everyone running for public office within 50 miles of me? Yep. Participate in SCCC? Yep. Out of state CCW's, funding and voting for it in other states to keep it open elsewhere and voting with my dollars. Keeping in touch with my former senators--one of whom my brother worked for. Getting constitutional opinions and case law from former professors and current professors I know teaching political science and business law. Keep up to date memberships with Ducks Unlimited and National Wild Turkey Federation in addition to NRA.


Got anymore questions?

oaklander
04-11-2008, 11:02 AM
Oaklander,

I can tell you that yellowfin is quite heavily involved in this fight. There's no need to smack him upside the head with this diatribe.

In fact, I find yellowfin's reaction to California gun laws quite interesting. As an outsider newly moved to California, I believe he's giving us an honest reflection of just how outrageous most of the rest of the country would find CA's gun laws if they were imposed on the "free states."

Agreed.

:)

yellowfin
04-11-2008, 11:20 AM
No worries. I'm glad that you addressed your concerns and upon reading further are more at ease. Quite glad to be with you and glad to have mutual understanding. The way I see it, as you see, is not that there isn't a fight, but that it's a bit downbeat, expectations set a little low, little voice of freedom, too little teeth, and what seems to me too much toleration of the present as if to validate it. Moderation of good as an answer to extremism of evil has gotten the country screwed, and in my opinion does almost everywhere it is tried. Look no further than the US Congress for all the evidence you need of that. You lose every football game where you fight less than the other side. Strategy and picking battles is good, and it is the way to hold the line when outgunned, but acceptable losses stack up...and maybe the stack doesn't look as high to some people, but when you see it from a little distance you see just how bad it is.

Tolerance of it is too easy to be taken for acceptance. Some I may have misjudged the former for the latter, but others clearly I have not. Our enemies will take whichever they can get, and they get enough of both to prevail. In fact that seems to be precisely the case: the status quo is tolerated, and the masses seem at best unaware of it. Perhaps I am optimistic, but I seriously doubt that an appreciable majority would actually be complicit in its bringing about. If actually brought to their attention and a real, informed choice given, I think fewer would actually stay with it. I am as vocal as I am in the point that there can be a choice, and if it is brought forward one will be made available by demand. First needed is illumination. I see plenty of that within, but much lack of it outside. Maybe it is my opinion and mine alone that if the general public knew of what is here in comparison to what is elsewhere that they would dislike it as well. Not as much as me, I know--that seems uncommon even here. But even a start would be vastly more than we have now.

Barry Goldwater said it best: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice."

MrLogan
04-11-2008, 11:32 AM
This is good news, indeed.



Realistic expectations were in the 1890's that we'd be burning candles and kerosene for light for another 1000 years. Realistic expectations in 1900 were that every town would have one telephone at most. The creaters of the first computers were saying that realistically there would never be need for more than maybe 10 in the whole world. Realistically in 1776 the people who started this country would have been shot or hanged 6 months later. Realism hasn't gotten humanity anywhere. Sure you need a bit to get from day to day, but not from where we are to where we can be. Moderates accomplish nothing--look to our Congress for all the evidence you need there. I for one prefer possibility. And principles. The idea of principles seems to be looked upon as antiquated these days, apparently dangerous too.

And yellowfin2, very well said.

buff_01
04-11-2008, 11:56 AM
wow, that is great news. congrats to you bay area denizens.

Liberty1
04-11-2008, 12:55 PM
...Moderation of good as an answer to extremism of evil has gotten the country screwed, and in my opinion does almost everywhere it is tried...

Well said, which is why I support wearing our rights on our hips and slung over our shoulders. And with our efforts there will be a rebirth of freedom in California!

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning" - Frederick Douglass

hoffmang
04-11-2008, 3:28 PM
Both thoughts have their place but have to be examined in the light of making perfect the enemy of the good.

This was a very good outcome.

1. SF Handgun Ban completely died.

2. State pre-emption was actually expanded back to pre Nordyke levels which will keep other new regs and municipalities from succeeding at dumb stuff.

3. NRA gets paid back.

All we lost was some time. Plus winning creates more wins. Trying to win the final battle first and all out before consolidating wins is a way to not only lose but look like losers to the disinterested masses who we need to at least remain neutral.

-Gene