View Single Post
Old 11-04-2012, 7:31 PM
GettoPhilosopher's Avatar
GettoPhilosopher GettoPhilosopher is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 64 / 100%

Right. Regaining tons of ground = regaining tons of ground even if we're not back to 1967 yet. The Allies in the South Pacific aren't losing just because Japan hasn't surrendered yet.

The AWB is all but gone. You can get almost any gun you want (short of the listed AWs, and there are tons of alternative receivers that let you get the exact same gun just not listed). You have to jump through a couple hoops (either bullet button or featureless), but the fact that you can buy whatever EBR you want and buy whatever rebuild kits you want and buy whatever pistol you want is us regaining TONS of ground.

We'll take it all back. Just because we haven't repealed the AWB 100% at this very moment doesn't mean we haven't made it almost irrelevant AND decisively killed the only serious attempt to strengthen the ban in a decade.

Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
Nice... The Calguns Foundation is doing all that they can about laws that were enacted prior to their formation. The effort to stop SB249 was the first real venture into the legislative arena, and that was a success.

What do you expect? Sorry they aren't going fast enough to suit you, the courts move at their own pace, and we've only had the Second Amendment in California since June of 2010.

Prior to formally incorporating, basically operating as individuals they accomplished quite a bit: Since March 2008 ( Which was still before Heller in June 2008) they have:

CGF Successes (2008-Present) [This list needs an update, there are more successes or pending cases...]
CGF Projects Underway:
  • Peņa - Handgun Roster is Unconstitutional: Peņa v. Cid
  • Richards v. Sheriff Ed Prieto, County of Yolo
  • Teixeira v. County of Alameda FFL dealers zoning
  • Silvester v. Kamala Harris, 10 day waiting period
  • CGF v. County of San Mateo, firerarm carry ban in parks
  • Scocca v. Sheriff Laurie Smith, County of Santa Clara, LTC policy
  • Richards v. Kamala HarrisAW Ban unconstitutionally vague
  • Lu v. Sheriff Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, LTC policy
  • Rossow v. Sheriff Mark Pazin, County of Merced LTC policy
  • Peterson - Partial funding of Peterson v. LaCabe, (right to carry/travel):
  • OOIDA - AB962 (ammo ban) is pre-empted by Federal law: OOIDA_v._Lindley
  • Min. Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program for firearms issues:
  • Inquiries into Livermore PD UOC policy (ongoing):
  • Challenged DOJ rulemaking on DROS fees, demanded audit:
  • Several undisclosed legal and grassroots actions.
This is all being accomplished without any paid staff, the only people getting paid are lawyers.
What do you expect?

Reply With Quote