Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-09-2013, 5:00 PM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Opposing bills are fine, but, why don't we try to get pro-gun legislation introduced?

Ok, so, hear me out.. There's a fair number of PRO-gun legislators in California. Not everyone is from LA/SF/SD after all. Lots of rural counties, counties that are more normal, etc.. Why can't we write up our own legislation and try to get that put onto the floor?

We do a lot of opposing, letter writing, phone calling, etc.. But, I haven't seen actual legislation crafted by a grass-roots group and trying to use the very pro-gun peeps in Sacramento to push the agenda forward.

If anti's can lobby and introduce legislation, why can't we? At least then, there's more meat on our opposition...

Am I completely off base here?
__________________


David Wolf, REALTOR / Broker Associate

In SoCal? Need a REALTOR? Work with someone who shares your love of guns.

CCW LTC holder, NRA Lifetime member

CA BRE# 01420938
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-09-2013, 5:34 PM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,816
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

No, your right. At this time we are on the defensive. We really do need to turn the tables.

However for state bills, it seems like it wouldn't get far. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I wish some of the pro-gun people (they aren't in my district) would.

I know there are a couple on the federal level (looking at Librarian's thread) but they most likely will not make it very far either.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-09-2013, 5:47 PM
nko nko is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Defensive stance is simply not working. We are dealing with an aggressive criminal agenda that exploits clueless liberals. I completely agree with you, and will support ANYTHING at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-09-2013, 5:51 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,171
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

We (for some interpretations of 'we') have tried, although not yet this year.

It depends on the political analysis of those we might want to carry such a bill, and exactly what it might contain.

Suppose such a bill were introduced, and failed in the first committee along a straight party-line vote. Given the Democrat dominance of both houses, how would the introducing member view that bill failure - would it be a negative toward re-election? Would it negatively impact that members bills in other areas? Does that member want to 'make a statement'?

I think, from the outside as I am, those seem to be difficult decisions.
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-09-2013, 5:52 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Since CA gun owners have been overcharged $20 million for background checks, and some of the antis are trying to grab that money for other purposes, it seems like it's reasonable and common sense that we should rescind the background check and DEROS fees, and make them no charge for gun buyers.
They are a form of "poll tax" anyway, and it's not right to charge a tax in order to exercise a right.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-09-2013, 5:55 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Another reasonable and common sense "no brainer" would be to open registration of AWs, so that all law abiding citizens are treated equally, and as a bonus, we can "solve" the bullet button issue that has some of our liberal legislators in a tizzy.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-09-2013, 5:55 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligaran View Post
No, your right. At this time we are on the defensive. We really do need to turn the tables.

However for state bills, it seems like it wouldn't get far. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I wish some of the pro-gun people (they aren't in my district) would.

I know there are a couple on the federal level (looking at Librarian's thread) but they most likely will not make it very far either.
It's been tried before.The outcome was similar to a mosquito peeing on a speeding freight train.

Last year before the SB249 counter-program kicked off, some reps offered a few pro-gun bills for consideration in Sacramento.

For a case study of what happens to pro gun legislation in CA, there was a modest proposal which states that people who held CCW permits would wait 3 days instead of the usual ten. Logically someone with a CCW permit already owned a gun, so imposing a cool off period made no sense. When the measure came up for a vote it got shot down with extreme prejudice. As I recall the vote was 3 supporting/ 7 against , with downstate urban state reps all but offended at the very idea of changing an established gun law.

Your only practical alternative for pro gun legislation in right denied states are the courts at this point.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-09-2013, 5:59 PM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is what I think we should start with...
  • Shall-issue CCW codified in law. Why could this work? Heller/McDonald and the fact that open carry is now illegal.
  • Kill the AWB. Why would this work? FBI crime stats showing that nothing beneficial came from it -- also, criminals wanting to use an AR/AK first remove the BB. Therefore, it only affects law-abiding citizens.
  • DROS delays -- after 10 days, DoJ either has to approve/deny or allow the transfer. Period.
  • Magazine limits. Get rid of them. Magazines aren't the problem, criminals are.
  • Fund the DoJ to actually collect the 40,000 weapons from 19,000 known felons in California.
  • CCW holders bypass 10 day wait, 30 day limit. Also, qualify with a semi/revolver, you can carry any; not just named serial #'s
We need to approach a few very pro-gun folk. I have a few ideas, but, I think we need to literally write something, and then start lobbying. Paying personal visits to their offices, making appointments, getting support. This is doable. We may not win, but at least we can get a discussion going that isn't just us playing defense.
__________________


David Wolf, REALTOR / Broker Associate

In SoCal? Need a REALTOR? Work with someone who shares your love of guns.

CCW LTC holder, NRA Lifetime member

CA BRE# 01420938
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:02 PM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
It's been tried before.The outcome was similar to a mosquito peeing on a speeding freight train.
"That's how you devour a whale.. One bite at a time." - from House of Cards

So? We're a mosquito. Get enough mosquito's together and we get noticed. And, while they're swatting at US, their own legislation is harder to pass.

It doesn't matter if we don't win; just trying might be enough.
__________________


David Wolf, REALTOR / Broker Associate

In SoCal? Need a REALTOR? Work with someone who shares your love of guns.

CCW LTC holder, NRA Lifetime member

CA BRE# 01420938
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:03 PM
LuvLRBs LuvLRBs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 565
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I think the chances of a pro gun bill being taken seriously is zero, since only a little over 20% of this state's population own firearms. But we do need to go on the offensive. We are a minority that is being, due to the hysteria over children slaughtered, persecuted and abused over something that is no fault of ours. This is like when the Jews were once persecuted because they were blamed for the plague. We need to point out that we are being bullied because we don't have large enough numbers to fight back. And that this is morally no better than when American Japanese were thrown into internment camps. We have a human history of the majority targeting a minority they perceive as "evil" and as having evil intent even though they in reality do not. They need to be called what they are: intolerant. Abusive. Arrogant. Mean-spirited. Unfair. Cruel. Self-righteous. Did I forget anything?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:04 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
This is what I think we should start with...
  • Shall-issue CCW codified in law. Why could this work? Heller/McDonald and the fact that open carry is now illegal.
  • Kill the AWB. Why would this work? FBI crime stats showing that nothing beneficial came from it -- also, criminals wanting to use an AR/AK first remove the BB. Therefore, it only affects law-abiding citizens.
  • DROS delays -- after 10 days, DoJ either has to approve/deny or allow the transfer. Period.
  • Magazine limits. Get rid of them. Magazines aren't the problem, criminals are.
  • Fund the DoJ to actually collect the 40,000 weapons from 19,000 known felons in California.
  • CCW holders bypass 10 day wait, 30 day limit. Also, qualify with a semi/revolver, you can carry any; not just named serial #'s
We need to approach a few very pro-gun folk. I have a few ideas, but, I think we need to literally write something, and then start lobbying. Paying personal visits to their offices, making appointments, getting support. This is doable. We may not win, but at least we can get a discussion going that isn't just us playing defense.
The anti's own the media, own the urban vote, and own the majority of public opinion in California.

Unless you have a few hundred million dollars to spend on a statewide PR campaign , its all for naught. The gun laws you face are a SYMPTOM of a culture warped into denying its own rights; to change the laws you must change the culture, which means convincing millions of police officers, anti-gun politicians who've built a career opposing the Constiution, and celebrities that their attitudes are in need of adjustment.

Good luck.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:09 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
"That's how you devour a whale.. One bite at a time." - from House of Cards

So? We're a mosquito. Get enough mosquito's together and we get noticed. And, while they're swatting at US, their own legislation is harder to pass.

It doesn't matter if we don't win; just trying might be enough.
Yet you don't see many insects changing the course of Union Pacific freight locomotives.

Without getting the good word on the 2nd Amendment into the hearts and minds of the 'verse, its a waste of time. That's like bringing a fire extinguisher to a forest fire and claiming your plucky determination is going to win against 45 MPH winds and fast paced flames.

In order to win against an enemy, you must employ tactics most likely to work. With a media, population, and government culturally hostile to the RKBA you cannot walk into an open political forum and expect a good result when you propose laws which fundamentally offend the powers that are.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:10 PM
Kurgan's Avatar
Kurgan Kurgan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 755
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

IMHO pro 2A legislation in California is DOA. Our efforts, and money are best served in the courts.

Unless there is a huge change in the makeup of the two legislative bodies, any pro gun bill is toast. It will never make it to the floor.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:11 PM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
The anti's own the media, own the urban vote, and own the majority of public opinion in California.

Unless you have a few hundred million dollars to spend on a statewide PR campaign , its all for naught. The gun laws you face are a SYMPTOM of a culture warped into denying its own rights; to change the laws you must change the culture, which means convincing millions of police officers, anti-gun politicians who've built a career opposing the Constiution, and celebrities that their attitudes are in need of adjustment.

Good luck.
Not all the media is anti. Not all people are. There's a social stigma associated with guns in California. The way you fix it isn't necessarily to spend money -- make a youtube video like the "It gets better" pro-gay vid. Facts, figures, kids, women. Appeal to the females -- hell, have half-naked men talking about gun safety if it'll help. Bottom line, grass-roots works.

You need to quit being defense, ignore the anti-message. Focus on things like 911 calls. How the police are over-worked. How the US is all about self-reliance. Patriotism, appeal to the females of the state, and an emotional message of being able to save your loved ones. Ignore all the rhetoric about assault weapons, weapons of war, etc.. Just make guns into an emotional issue. "If you love your family, protect them." or, "Don't let your daughter become a rape statistic." or, "25% of all women will be raped... Police may drive you to the hospital; a gun will prevent it"

The antis fight dirty. Let's beat them at their own game.
__________________


David Wolf, REALTOR / Broker Associate

In SoCal? Need a REALTOR? Work with someone who shares your love of guns.

CCW LTC holder, NRA Lifetime member

CA BRE# 01420938
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:18 PM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Yet you don't see many insects changing the course of Union Pacific freight locomotives.
Technically, a BB Gun could stop a train. Hard, yes. But, it is possible.

XKCD's "What-If: BB Gun": http://what-if.xkcd.com/18/
__________________


David Wolf, REALTOR / Broker Associate

In SoCal? Need a REALTOR? Work with someone who shares your love of guns.

CCW LTC holder, NRA Lifetime member

CA BRE# 01420938
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:20 PM
esp1's Avatar
esp1 esp1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 704
iTrader: 39 / 98%
Default

We should organize firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers as well as ammunition, tactical gear, and accessories to cut off government and law enforcement sales of all weapons to anything related to any California State Governmental entity whether that be at the city, county, state levels.

Cut this State off from any new weapons and items necessary for weapons and serve them up a taste of their own medicine.

Kind of like LaRue is doing even more so.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:21 PM
esp1's Avatar
esp1 esp1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 704
iTrader: 39 / 98%
Default

We could get everyone in on it to the point of if anyone even at the dealer level or one of the non-big sellers are using it as an opportunity to make money and to not participate that the rest of the gun owners in the country will black list them and boycott that particular company from a national standpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:58 PM
IPSICK's Avatar
IPSICK IPSICK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 4,246
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

I'm starting to think that if the opposition wants to treat guns like cars, then clear and specific paths to LTC/CCW should be mandatory.

Regulation of PRIVATELY held and used guns should remain minimal.

However, PUBLICLY used guns via LTC/CCW are already regulated much in the way our opposition desires.
  • Licensing and training requirements
  • Operation restrictions while under the influence
  • Liability Insurance
  • Registration of arms used for LTC

The problem is that LTC can be difficult for many Californians. LTC should really be almost as common as Driver's License acquisition.

If we want to introduce legislation, then it should on the surface be promoted as reasonable to our opposition and their supporters.
__________________
"When you get the (men) to the range, you just get the men. But when you bring the (women) to the range, you get the (whole family). And that's what's going to save our 2nd Amendment."--Dianna Liedorff

"Since self-preservation is the 1st law of nature, we assert the...right to self-defense. The Constitution...clearly affirms the right of every American...to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution." --Malcolm X
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-09-2013, 7:01 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Is this a serious post?

You want to run bills with all 5 pro-gun people in Sacramento. With probably over 1,000 other bills in motion. After Sandy Hook. With a CA Leg anti-gun majority, if not outright supermajority.

Have you ever been to the building?

I want the drugs you must have.

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
Ok, so, hear me out.. There's a fair number of PRO-gun legislators in California. Not everyone is from LA/SF/SD after all. Lots of rural counties, counties that are more normal, etc.. Why can't we write up our own legislation and try to get that put onto the floor?

We do a lot of opposing, letter writing, phone calling, etc.. But, I haven't seen actual legislation crafted by a grass-roots group and trying to use the very pro-gun peeps in Sacramento to push the agenda forward.

If anti's can lobby and introduce legislation, why can't we? At least then, there's more meat on our opposition...

Am I completely off base here?
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-09-2013, 7:10 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,302
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any pro-RKBA bill at this time would be introduced for symbolic reasons only - zero chance of passage.

But if you are going to introduce a symbolic bill, it must have symbolic value. At this time there is no symbolic value for us that I can identify. Plenty of symbolic value to the anti-RKBA folk if such a bill were to be introduced at this time.

Let's not give gifts to the bad guys.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-09-2013, 7:20 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Is this a serious post?

You want to run bills with all 5 pro-gun people in Sacramento. With probably over 1,000 other bills in motion. After Sandy Hook. With a CA Leg anti-gun majority, if not outright supermajority.

Have you ever been to the building?

I want the drugs you must have.

-Brandon
My thoughts as well.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-10-2013, 8:18 AM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let the antis spend their time and money fighting against our proposals, instead of the other way around.
Let the antis defend the status quo, instead of the other way around.
Let the antis be seen as "the party of no" whoa re engaged in stopping legislation dealing with the violent crime issue, instead of the other way around.

Leland Yee (or some other clown in our legislature) spends less than five minutes thinking of some ridiculous idea, and types it out at a cost of nothing to him, and then we have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting it.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-10-2013, 9:05 AM
finsfan21's Avatar
finsfan21 finsfan21 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Idaho...I'm Free!!
Posts: 432
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
Technically, a BB Gun could stop a train. Hard, yes. But, it is possible.

XKCD's "What-If: BB Gun": http://what-if.xkcd.com/18/
Now I know where Jesse Jackson got his info on an assault weapon stopping a train.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-10-2013, 9:46 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,755
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

We had this discussion about 2 weeks ago.

We are on the defense - always reacting to the other sides moves.

Filing a case in court is not offensive - it's a reaction - defensive.

Single most effective and direct way is to go ballot propositions that amend the Constitution of the Republic of California.

There needs to be several:

1. One that affirms in explicit terms the 2nd Amendment.

2. One that affirms the unorganized militia:

- Certification requirement that requires all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 55(?) to own semi-autos of their choice - rifle, shotgun and handgun - and know how to take them up - shoot them - and take them down.

- Require that Sheriffs issue a booklet that informs the Militia where to report should the Governor call them up only for the purpose of putting down a riot that harms people and property, or a foreign invasion.

- Establish "uncharged" or "unchambered" open carry and concealed carry without any qualifiers such as "may", "shall" or "license".

- Allow storage in vehicle when unintended either locked to a bolted gun rack in vehicle or bolted safe in vehicle, locked hard-case, or with a simple trigger lock.

- Allow militia who volunteer to be trained in the use of machine guns, grenades, and light artillery via law enforcement or National Guard facilities on a "shall" basis. Certificate shall be issued to those who volunteer and complete the necessary training.

- Require a 50.00 dollar tax to be paid by the income tax deadline annually by those who cannot provide certification of ability to use and ownership of required firearms. Legislature can raise this amount annually by no more than 3%. Fund are to be distributed .25 to state, .50 to counties and .25 to municipalities for the purpose of the required certification - and cover medical and investigative cost for unarmed victims of crime.

- Require each county to maintain at least one shooting range at which one deputy is present at all times to certify that each member of the militia is able to demonstrate an ability to take up, fire and take down each of the three noted firearms - with certification copies maintained with the militia person, county and state.

- Disallow the registration of all semi-auto firearms used by the citizen militia and citizen non-militia.

- Encourage all women and the disabled to do the same - with no regulatory requirement or regulatory costs imposed.

3. Affirm status of convicted felons who have been released and are not serving parole as first class citizens with all rights restored automatically. Have a clause whereby if the Federal Government protests - Felons are excused from selective service and from call-up by the Governor for the purpose of putting down a riot or repulsing a foreign invasion.

4. One that requires for a suspension of any right:

- for a term less than one year be predicated upon a conviction for a misdemeanor by a jury of peers in a Superior Court of the State of California.

- for a term of more than one year be predicated upon a conviction for a felony by a jury of peers in a Superior Court of the State of California.

- requires restraining orders to have backing in the form of a misdemeanor conviction directly related to the charge filed for the restraining order.

Last edited by mrrabbit; 02-10-2013 at 9:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:06 AM
ll-Rafael-ll ll-Rafael-ll is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 200
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I say we repeal the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 for starters.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:18 AM
Kurgan's Avatar
Kurgan Kurgan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 755
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I'm not sure what state some of you live in, but I live in California. While I understand the desire to take the fight to the legislature and the people, no pro 2A legislation or pro 2A referendum has even a remote chance to pass in this state in this particular moment in history.

Again, my time and money (and yours as well) are best spent to fight this in the courts. If not that, the time and money should be spent to defeat anti-2A politicians when they run for office.

I get it. You want to do something. So do I, but you just won't succeed the way that is being proposed.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:25 AM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Single most effective and direct way is to go ballot propositions that amend the Constitution of the Republic of California.

There needs to be several:

1. One that affirms in explicit terms the 2nd Amendment.

2. One that affirms the unorganized militia:
Seriously? No.

Rights are not open for discussion on a ballot initiative; plus, your ideas don't even jive with the recent SCOTUS opinions.

Militia is a red herring; and a tax on non-training? Seriously?

This isn't helpful.. What I'm suggesting is a bill that moves CA towards the 2nd, not into fantasy land where we're all de-facto soldiers.
__________________


David Wolf, REALTOR / Broker Associate

In SoCal? Need a REALTOR? Work with someone who shares your love of guns.

CCW LTC holder, NRA Lifetime member

CA BRE# 01420938
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:30 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,755
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
Seriously? No.

Rights are not open for discussion on a ballot initiative; plus, your ideas don't even jive with the recent SCOTUS opinions.

Militia is a red herring; and a tax on non-training? Seriously?

This isn't helpful.. What I'm suggesting is a bill that moves CA towards the 2nd, not into fantasy land where we're all de-facto soldiers.
Read the Constitution of the United States of America

Read the Federalist Papers

Read Law Dictionaries of the time both were written...

...and more importantly, pay some attention to the very few states that actually still have unorganized militia with local chapters.

Also note the careful use of the word "affirm".

Educate yourself please, as the retired BATF agent and others suggested at the recent Los Gatos meeting.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:38 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 9,787
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Snowball's chance in hell?...

Quote:
Originally Posted by esp1 View Post
We could get everyone in on it to the point of if anyone even at the dealer level or one of the non-big sellers are using it as an opportunity to make money and to not participate that the rest of the gun owners in the country will black list them and boycott that particular company from a national standpoint.
The "rest of the gun owners" in this country are still smarting a little from the poll here (plus a thread or 2) suggesting background checks are needed for all weapons purchases.

That half who responded agreed still astounds me.

-hanko
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf
I see the gulf of Mexico
As tiny as a tear
The coast of California
Must be somewhere over here, over here
Greatful Dead
“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:46 AM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Read the Constitution of the United States of America

Read the Federalist Papers

Read Law Dictionaries of the time both were written...

...and more importantly, pay some attention to the very few states that actually still have unorganized militia with local chapters.

Also note the careful use of the word "affirm".

Educate yourself please, as the retired BATF agent and others suggested at the recent Los Gatos meeting.

=8-)
That's nice... Read Heller and McDonald. SCOTUS has more weight than bureaucrats.
__________________


David Wolf, REALTOR / Broker Associate

In SoCal? Need a REALTOR? Work with someone who shares your love of guns.

CCW LTC holder, NRA Lifetime member

CA BRE# 01420938
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-10-2013, 11:32 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,976
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I agree we need to not always be on the defensive, but the universe is not just the legislature. Think of us as playing defense on the legislative side, but playing offense on the judicial side.

I wish we could be on the offensive on both sides, but I'm not sure it's possible. Clearly we can't get anything passed in the legislature at either the CA state or Federal levels.

So the question becomes can we, in failing on the legislative side, still create value for the 2A movement?

I think the answer is no, but I don't think the information is available by which to evaluate such a question.

Federally, the National Carry Reciprocity thing passed the House, and the Senate stomped on it. There was some national media attention. Did that net us anything? Did we move any needles? Is there any reason to believe more of similar stuff would be better?

Unless we know how much political capital we burned getting that bill through the House, and how much political capital was spent crushing it, we can't accurately say. Unless we can see the effect it's life had on effecting anti-2A legislation (since the antis were on the defensive for some brief time), or the effects it had on the national firearms discussion, we don't know.

Anyone know?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:34 PM
radioman's Avatar
radioman radioman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Yucca Arizona
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The good doctor makes some good points.

As a boy I lived in the city, I was a small boy so it was hard to keep my lunch money. I would not join a gang, if you can't stand on your own two feet your a POS, in my book anyway, I was out numbered by this gang and that gang. Then one day after giving my lunch money away and getting me beat up but off the ground I found the balls to fight back. Not that I always won, but, I was eating more lunch, I started to pump iron at 13, I got bigger and faster, and then I was taking back my lunch money.

My point is just this.
We have been getting our butts kicked for so long we think we can't fight back, we are out numbered, think again. If a 110 13yo boy can get up to 150 and hit so hard and fast that when I did fight, the other side did not want a rematch. Just something to think about
__________________
"One useless man is called a disgrace, two become a law firm, and three or more become a Congress."
the new avatar is a painting from 1906, escape from San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-10-2013, 4:33 PM
PaparockCal's Avatar
PaparockCal PaparockCal is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up Take this state back from the socialists!

If there is any hope for me remaining in this state this idea is a must for me!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-10-2013, 5:03 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,302
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The ballot proposition has some possibility. . .

But in this climate we're talking $30 million to really even get noticed here in the state - but you can be quite certain of a loss.

$50 million might get you a sort of competitive battle, but the odds of a loss are very high.

$100 million and if you pray really hard and the Democrats sort of ignore you - you might have even odds of winning with your ballot proposition.

$200 million in a prolonged and skillfully run campaign and I give you a 70% chance of a win.

$300 million in a prolonged and skillfully run campaign and I think we could get you an 80%+ chance of a good proposition win.

What's more, at the higher expenditure levels with a well-run campaign you could potentially shift the whole political climate in the state and reduce the overall pain of the state for the future for a very long time.

Oh, and I should point out that I'm not at all sure that it wouldn't cost 30-50% more than my estimates to get those odds of victory.

Now circumstances could change and you might be able to achieve victory at lesser costs - but I don't see those circumstances on the horizon.


So come up with several hundred million dollars and let's go for it!!!

If any of you can come up with the funding,
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-10-2013, 6:49 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
We are on the defense - always reacting to the other sides moves.

Filing a case in court is not offensive - it's a reaction - defensive.

Single most effective and direct way is to go ballot propositions that amend the Constitution of the Republic of California.
No. The court is offensive. Notice how we're about to have gun shows at Alameda County Fairgrounds? The chief roadblock is that no FFL has inventory... SF public housing allows guns now. We're going to get the right to carry in California (like we already got Sacramento County) by July 2014. In court we go on the offensive and, unlike in the legislature, we get to craft our challenges very, very carefully. Everyone wants the offense to move faster, but it took 45 years to undermine our rights (started in 1968 - even here with the ban on loaded OC) and it's taken far less months to start expanding them.

As to why no bills - we can't get them out of committee. Wasting time wastes money. That money and time can be better spent beating back laws and regulations in courts. It's how we'll secure our rights.

Notice how there are no handgun bans on the table anywhere (except the oops! accidental ones?) Wonder why? Could it be the courts have spoken? It's easier to count the things that are easy to count, and much harder to count all the proposals that the other side can't make.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-10-2013, 6:59 PM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Notice how there are no handgun bans on the table anywhere (except the oops! accidental ones?) Wonder why? Could it be the courts have spoken? It's easier to count the things that are easy to count, and much harder to count all the proposals that the other side can't make.
I still consider all the magazine limit BS as a limitation on my ability to defend myself with a pistol. 10 rounds, now possibly 6? That's a large issue IMHO.

But, if I had a magic wand to wave around, I'd start with making legislators personally responsible for bills that are found to be unconstitutional on their face by the courts. Stuff that's so far out of line (like the NY SAFE act) that you'd have to be a blind moron to not see it infringes... I'd love for them to have to go bankrupt and lose their house, car, etc...
__________________


David Wolf, REALTOR / Broker Associate

In SoCal? Need a REALTOR? Work with someone who shares your love of guns.

CCW LTC holder, NRA Lifetime member

CA BRE# 01420938
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-10-2013, 7:51 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Only a Democrat can introduce an even remotely "pro-gun" small-fixit bill and have it seriously considered. GOP is completely irrelevant in terms of gun politics in CA.

I don't understand why people think a supermajority is somehow different than normal for us for guns. First, the supermajority only meant two things: Budgets & taxes increased couldn't be passed (Proposition 13) without a supermajority, and for overriding gubernatorial vetos. There's nothing in gun legislation that required a supermajority, so why anyone devines something from said supermajority is kinda dumb.

If Governor Brown were to veto something, there would be at least one Dem in both houses who would go along with his veto and refuse to override even if they voted for it. All you need is one.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-10-2013, 8:39 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,755
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
No. The court is offensive. Notice how we're about to have gun shows at Alameda County Fairgrounds? The chief roadblock is that no FFL has inventory... SF public housing allows guns now. We're going to get the right to carry in California (like we already got Sacramento County) by July 2014. In court we go on the offensive and, unlike in the legislature, we get to craft our challenges very, very carefully. Everyone wants the offense to move faster, but it took 45 years to undermine our rights (started in 1968 - even here with the ban on loaded OC) and it's taken far less months to start expanding them.

As to why no bills - we can't get them out of committee. Wasting time wastes money. That money and time can be better spent beating back laws and regulations in courts. It's how we'll secure our rights.

Notice how there are no handgun bans on the table anywhere (except the oops! accidental ones?) Wonder why? Could it be the courts have spoken? It's easier to count the things that are easy to count, and much harder to count all the proposals that the other side can't make.

-Gene
No sir, it is defensive. THEY are always one step ahead in that the move they make results in us being hamstrung in exercising our rights - even if it is only temporary after a successful court action or pressure by constituents. The people who are harmed or die as a result is not temporary - it's permanent.

Examples:

Ban on large cap magazine. (Offense)
No one can buy. (Short Term Result)
Suit filed and won. (Defense)
Ban removed, large cap magazines available again. (End Cycle)

Costs:

Law abiders harmed financially and physically. Our rights temporarily infringed - not those of the banners. They win! < THAT IS THE SICK PART!!!

You think you won via the court case, they're laughing in our faces because they got what they wanted, law abiding folks assaulted, murdered and raped who would otherwise have been able to defend themselves.


Ban on open carry. (Offense)
No one can open carry - guns stay in vehicle. (Short Term Result)
Suit filed and won. (Defense)
Ban removed. (End Done)

Costs:

Law abiders harmed by a mad-man who walks into restaurant of people who have left firearms in vehicles - it's fish in a barrel.

You think you won via the court case, they're laughing in our faces because they got what they wanted, law abiding citizens in a grave who can't be brought back to life who would have otherwise been able to defend themselves.


This whole situation need to be flipped entirely the other way such that the California State Constitution affirms without equivocation our basic fundamental rights such that THEY (the antis) are the ones forced into going the SCOC and/or the SCOTUS route.

Example:

Propositon amendment to affirm 2nd Amend with clarity passes. (Offense)
Every citizen who chooses armed, open and concealed. (Short Term Result)
Anti's file in Superior Court (Defense - Likely Denied)
Anti's file in CA Supreme Court (Defense - 50/50)
Anti's file in Federal Appeals Court (Defense - 50/50)
Anti's file in SCOTUS (Defense - 10/90)

...and of course, they're in the position once again of trying to tell SCOTUS that they were wrong in recent 2nd Amendment cases...

In other words, force THEM to fight the uphill battle. And of course, put them in the risky PR position of having to explain to people why they're arguing AGAINST the 2nd Amendment...and for taking away people's rights carte blanche.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-10-2013, 9:29 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,171
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
In other words, force THEM to fight the uphill battle. And of course, put them in the risky PR position of having to explain to people why they're arguing AGAINST the 2nd Amendment...and for taking away people's rights carte blanche.

=8-)
See Darrel Steinberg's press conference from earlier in this week - as it happens, it's no risk at all.
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:05 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,755
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
See Darrel Steinberg's press conference from earlier in this week - as it happens, it's no risk at all.
Even Democrats are starting to notice...and get pissed. They're showing up on the likes of FreeRepublic, DailyPaul and other forums stating as such.

Overreach is what it's called.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:40 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.