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
  #201  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:42 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I need people to think about this statement and not just have a knee jerk reaction.

We need the absolute most new registrations we can possibly get in any way we can get them during a registration window.

Pause and think about why.

-Gene
The only knee jerk reaction here is allowing this bill to pass and then thinking you can squash it in court.

Never NEVER register your personal property with the government. You own it, you bought it legally, its none of their friggin business!

Even in New York the majority of people are NOT registering their firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:42 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Remember how great it was when we celebrated the OC ban because it was going to open up concealed carry across CA?
Who's we? You're (mistakenly) connecting two very different cohorts - those with a clue, and those without.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:44 PM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,491
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Nope. Plan A. Let the corrupt politicians pass all the unconstitutional laws they want, and hope the courts rule in our favor.


Welcome to California.
The only problem with 'HOPE' is that many Judges and basically ALL DA's are ELECTED or APPOINTED, so there is the ongoing issue that ,being polishiitins, they all want to stay in power, further their own agendas and get pay-o-la one way or another for their actions... many DA's only give a crap about CONVICTIONS, not JUSTICE, if they convict the wrong guy or gal, OH WELL, appeal while getting AR and rotting in prison..... Many Judges are out and out rotten liberals and use the bench to make policy according their ideals...

EVEN IF we get a 'ruled in our favor' the state will appeal and one way or another, unless verified by a group of GUN OWNERS, the records,registrations,etc will NEVER BE ERASED or DESTROYED either in hard copy or in the 'puter......

I really hate every aspect of this state's government at every level......

We are all in S**t Sandwich and morass of assinine people in positions to make policy that have no biz being there... I would not trust these idiots to change the oil in my car or mow my lawn....
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:45 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Never NEVER register your personal property with the government. You own it, you bought it legally, its none of their friggin business!
See my initial posts in this thread. There are two kinds of registration

1) the kind that makes gun owners cry
2) the kind that makes gun owners cry, but makes Allison Merrilee cry even harder
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:48 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Who's we? You're (mistakenly) connecting two very different cohorts - those with a clue, and those without.
I was being sarcastic. The tactics suggested by the majority on this site suck.

The ONLY way to keep our rights is to exercise them like they were never threatened in the first place. Make them deal with it. There's not enough private prisons to hold us all. Eventually the grabbers would give up.


It shocked me when I found out why every one was calling this a briar patch bill. I thought it was too, but for a completely different reason. PM me if you'd like to know why.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:49 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
See my initial posts in this thread. There are two kinds of registration

1) the kind that makes gun owners cry
2) the kind that makes gun owners cry, but makes Allison Merrilee cry even harder


What does she care? She is no longer working there. I don't give a rats azz about who is crying in government. This crap has to stop being a game, which it is turning into.

I will never register the weapons i currently own and i will encourage every gun owner to do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:49 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,385
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinestr View Post
Sounds like the usual long road through the courts with slow responses, what happened to the full frontal stop it before it starts. I'm starting to get some real mixed signals with tactics on how this legislation will be fought NOT GOOD
You act as if we have a choice in whether legislation will pass. We play with the hand that is dealt to us.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:52 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
I was being sarcastic. The tactics suggested by the majority on this site suck.
The majority? Are those the same two cohorts or not? Make up your mind.

Quote:
The ONLY way to keep our rights is to exercise them like they were never threatened in the first place. Make them deal with it.


Right.

Quote:
There's not enough private prisons to hold us all.
Doesn't have to be prison. It could be a simple as precluding you from getting a job, loan, drivers license, or credit card.

Quote:
Eventually the grabbers would give up.
Wrong. They will never give up.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:54 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
What does she care? She is no longer working there. I don't give a rats azz about who is crying in government.
She played a role now filled by somebody else. The names are unimportant; they change. The roles do not. Do you really not understand what I am alluding to?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 02-25-2013 at 5:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:54 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
You act as if we have a choice in whether legislation will pass. We play with the hand that is dealt to us.
Legislation is nothing but words on paper. You have a choice in how you will respond to it.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:57 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
She played a role now filled by somebody else. The names are unimportant; they chage. The roles do not. Do you really not understand what I am alluding to?
Sure i do. AND its flawed. Don't you see how Gene is encouraging registration so he can have a new play ground to play on instead of saying "call your reps, demand and end to this type of law making" or flood them with emails. NO he is licking his chops wanting to play with what they hand him.

Geez louise at least tell me he thinks the governor would veto this thing.

Last edited by taperxz; 02-25-2013 at 5:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:58 PM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,491
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

We should do a million person march on Ball-Sacramento and the capital and occupy it, somehow do a blanket of the worst charges against all of them possible for actions against the COTUS, CITIZENS and DISCRIMINATION..... Face it, 'we' as gunowners are being PERSECUTED because we are 'different' and if the craaaappp hits the flapper have a means to 'ultimately' change things.......

Another way to look at it is gun owners are being discriminated just like gays,lesbians,minorities, you name it.... guess we have to also 'play that card'.

I KNOW there is some racketeering, extortion, coercion going on against us, just look at the bills.... you own something prior to the 'ban' and IF you DO NOT WANT to GO TO PRISON AS A FELON, you WILL PAY and ,violating your 4th,5th,and other Ammendments, 'legally ' turn over information that 'they can use against 'you' ....or if you do not and 'they' find your stuff you will not pass 'go' you go straight to prison......no wonder they are clearing the prisons....
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:58 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
The majority? Are those the same two cohorts or not? Make up your mind.





Right.



Doesn't have to be prison. It could be a simple as precluding you from getting a job, loan, drivers license, or credit card.



Wrong. They will never give up.
Thank you for proving my point. When the Mulford Act was signed, how did people respond? They let their rights be infringed. What the Black Panthers did was a legal act. Once the CA govt made it illegal, they should've kept doing it anyway. And so should every other gun owner in CA.

And I fail to see how an employer, bank, DMV, or AmEx employee will know if I'm concealed carrying, unless they threaten my life. And with the way things are going, even those that comply will have those same restrictions to worry about. There are grabbers out there that want us registered like friggin' sex offenders.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:59 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Legislation is nothing but words on paper. You have a choice in how you will respond to it.
Next time you get a traffic ticket, feel free to ignore those words on the paper. Same with your credit card bill. Or that notice that your DL expired. Or the words printed on your rental agreement. Or the ones on your mortgage.

You talk tough for an anarchist. Let's see you do something about it, tough guy.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:02 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Next time you get a traffic ticket, feel free to ignore those words on the paper. Same with your credit card bill. Or that notice that your DL expired. Or the words printed on your rental agreement. Or the ones on your mortgage.

You talk tough for an anarchist. Let's see you do something about it, tough guy.
A traffic ticket must be paid. I signed a contract to comply with that. Never did I sign a contract to give up my 2nd Amendment rights. Same with a credit card bill, an expired license, and rental agreement. Those all have contracts, signed by me.

Also, I am not an anarchist. Didn't know believing in the Constitution (rule of law) made me an anarchist. And I do something about it every single day. My rights will not be infringed unless I allow them to be. Save the tough guy talk for someone else.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:02 PM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,491
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

The BIGGEST problem is that there was NEVER a 2A IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE Constitution........ THAT is where they are ultimately getting their Balls from.... 'dont like it, move out, we did not incorporate it here so it does not apply to you worthless peasants who inhabit this state and are forced to comply with us, what do you think this is, the USA?'
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:04 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Thank you for proving my point. When the Mulford Act was signed, how did people respond? They let their rights be infringed.
As opposed to doing what, tough guy?

Quote:
they should've kept doing it anyway. And so should every other gun owner in CA.
You first. Go ahead.

Quote:
And I fail to see how an employer, bank, DMV, or AmEx employee will know if I'm concealed carrying, unless they threaten my life.
Once you are prosecuted as a felon, they'll know. And once you "fight back" and defy the warrant out for your arrest (or violate your terms of parole), they won't have to do a damn thing to ruin your life except sit back and watch you live a life on the run.

In any case, you are missing the point. Why did the DOJ refuse the legal authority to widen the AW ban list?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother answering until you do.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:05 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
signed by me
Does that include EULAs?

Quote:
Didn't know believing in the Constitution (rule of law)
If you believe in the rule of law, you'll believe that the 2A wasn't incorporated against the states until recently.

You do know what incorporation is, right?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:07 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
As opposed to doing what, tough guy?



You first. Go ahead.



Once you are prosecuted as a felon, they'll know. And once you "fight back" and defy the warrant out for your arrest (or violate your terms of parole), they won't have to do a damn thing to ruin your life except sit back and watch you live a life on the run.

In any case, you are missing the point. Why did the DOJ refuse the legal authority to widen the AW ban list?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother answering until you do.
WOW just WOW! How about not being so ignorant to think the government was going to stop there. The ONLY reason this was not fought is that the media portrayed this as taking guns from the black criminals. No one back then thought gun laws would go as far as they have come.

You fight, let your voice be heard, and you challenge your local politicians.

ARE you suggesting we should just take it in the keester and comply?
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:08 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Wrong. They will never give up.
Correct. They will not give up. Rather, we will end them.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:09 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
As opposed to doing what, tough guy?



You first. Go ahead.



Once you are prosecuted as a felon, they'll know. And once you "fight back" and defy the warrant out for your arrest (or violate your terms of parole), they won't have to do a damn thing to ruin your life except sit back and watch you live a life on the run.

In any case, you are missing the point. Why did the DOJ refuse the legal authority to widen the AW ban list?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother answering until you do.
The life of a scared subject must be pretty disheartening.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:11 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
ARE you suggesting we should just take it in the keester and comply?
I'm suggesting we threaten to comply when asked to register thousands (millions?) of firearms as newly minted RAWs.

I can't believe somebody who has been around as long as you is demanding I be explicit about this. Should we really be helping Steinberg fix this legislation before putting it up for a vote?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 02-25-2013 at 5:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:12 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,515
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Remember how great it was when we celebrated the OC ban because it was going to open up concealed carry across CA?
I don't remember anyone celebrating, but our argument that we no longer have OC to the courts hasn't even had time for a judgement yet (currently awaiting judgement in the 9th circuit).
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:12 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
The life of a scared subject must be pretty disheartening.
I'm not scared in the least. I understand the rules of engagement and what it takes to win where you do not.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:14 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I'm not scared in the least. I understand the rules of engagement and what it takes to win where you do not.
You mean like depending on corrupt courts to decide what rights we have? Took them over 200 years to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, right? How long do you think you will live? Once they have full registration, how long will it take before confiscation happens? Once the names are written down, you're SOL. The violations of FOPA prove that.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:15 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,515
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Legislation is nothing but words on paper. You have a choice in how you will respond to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
A traffic ticket must be paid. I signed a contract to comply with that. Never did I sign a contract to give up my 2nd Amendment rights. Same with a credit card bill, an expired license, and rental agreement. Those all have contracts, signed by me.

Also, I am not an anarchist. Didn't know believing in the Constitution (rule of law) made me an anarchist. And I do something about it every single day. My rights will not be infringed unless I allow them to be. Save the tough guy talk for someone else.
But contracts are "nothing but words on paper."
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:15 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I'm suggesting we threaten to comply when asked to register thousands (millions?) of firearms as newly minted RAWs.

I can't believe somebody who has been around as long as you is demanding I be explicit about this. Should we really be helping Steinberg fix this legislation before putting up for a vote?
You do understand that if the registration is constitutional that your newly RAW will not be able to be sold, transferred, or simply passed on to your children right? You do understand that if GENE can't get around this, that younger generations will have no access to these firearms, RIGHT?

You want to put all your eggs in one big CGF easter basket, go for it.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:17 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
But contracts are "nothing but words on paper."
You have a choice in how you will respond to it.

By signing your name, or clicking 'I agree.', you have issued your response. If you choose to lie, and not stick to your own compliance, you are a cowardly man.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:24 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Are you suggesting the DOJ won't blink this time? How have things changed since then? Are they willing to create millions of new AWs in CA where there weren't willing to create a few thousand before?

And how else do you suggest we "fight" this legislation before it passes? Remember: your opinion means nothing to congress, and never has. Surely you aren't suggesting we open carry on the steps of capitol hill, like the other geniuses in this thread?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:28 PM
Sinestr's Avatar
Sinestr Sinestr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Smells like cow shi+
Posts: 652
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
You act as if we have a choice in whether legislation will pass. We play with the hand that is dealt to us.
You have missed the greater sub text to the on going debates over the years as to how we approach these bills and what we do to try and kill them early through committee and lobbying efforts, and personal meetings with legislators and key figures in the know. Now the only talk seems to be post defeat and what will happen in court.
__________________
"Strength Determination Merciless Forever"
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:28 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
You mean like depending on corrupt courts to decide what rights we have? Took them over 200 years to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, right? How long do you think you will live? Once they have full registration, how long will it take before confiscation happens? Once the names are written down, you're SOL. The violations of FOPA prove that.
There are three branches of government. If you are suggesting the courts will not grant us succor, there is nothing left, and the only solution is anarchy.

Are you an anarchist or not?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:28 PM
Knife Edge's Avatar
Knife Edge Knife Edge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,359
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Fong, with your logic the US should have a history as nothing other than a territory and we should all be speaking German. Sometimes asking doesn't work.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:29 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Are you suggesting the DOJ won't blink this time? How have things changed since then? Are they willing to create millions of new AWs in CA where there weren't willing to create a few thousand before?

And how else do you suggest we "fight" this legislation before it passes? Remember: your opinion means nothing to congress, and never has. Surely you aren't suggesting we open carry on the steps of capitol hill, like the other geniuses in this thread?
Funny that that's what you think I suggested. Do you march on capitol hill in your normal daily life? I'm saying IGNORE unconstitutional laws. Not start a riot.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:29 PM
TahoeTim TahoeTim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lake Tahoe
Posts: 274
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Curtis,
You are playing chicken with our constitutional rights. Do you actually believe that confiscation will NOT follow registration? You act like you are so tricky about the RAW registration. Haven't you ever considered that they wrote the "flaw" on purpose?

You are a mouse smelling cheese...

Geez, if a mouse can figure out that a piece of cheese is sitting on a trap, we should be able see the trap they are trying to set for us.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:30 PM
Knife Edge's Avatar
Knife Edge Knife Edge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,359
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinestr View Post
You have missed the greater sub text to the on going debates over the years as to how we approach these bills and what we do to try and kill them early through committee and lobbying efforts, and personal meetings with legislators and key figures in the know. Now the only talk seems to be post defeat and what will happen in court.
Exactly and a select few will make an incredible amount of money fighting beyond that point.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:30 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinestr View Post
we do to try and kill them early through committee and lobbying efforts, and personal meetings with legislators a key figures in the know.
At the legislative level, that is all we can do. Everything else is clueless bluster.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:32 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
At the legislative level, that is all we can do. Everything else is clueless bluster.
Why don't you tell Wildhawker that? He and others squashed SB249.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:32 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
I'm saying IGNORE unconstitutional laws.
Which will do absolutely nothing except eventually get you arrested.

Unless you are suggesting everybody should do this out of civil disobedience, with the goal of overwhelming the police and the court system.

I suppose you'll tell me that isn't actually a riot.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:33 PM
Knife Edge's Avatar
Knife Edge Knife Edge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,359
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Funny that that's what you think I suggested. Do you march on capitol hill in your normal daily life? I'm saying IGNORE unconstitutional laws. Not start a riot.
Plus 1, ignore. If someone wants to get personal just remember that it was their decision, not yours. Then defend yourself by any and all means necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:34 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,767
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Why don't you tell Wildhawker that? He and others squashed SB249.
I won't say more regarding the AW registration threat. It annoys me that you (of all people) aren't understanding what I'm implying. I know the rest of the posters are noobs, but you should know better.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
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 6:32 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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.