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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #441  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:02 PM
MT1 MT1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 3,666
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizcuits View Post
While I agree with CCW being of the highest priority, I totally disagree with the Assault Weapons ban being the lowest. If anything it is a close tie with the CCW's and also probably one of the easier ones to fight considering all the leg work that has already been done in relations to the Hoff's (I think it was him) application denial for an AW permit.

The 10 day wait, and school zones are in my opinion the lowest of priority.

I agree.

I could care less about the 10 day wait, if it makes the anti's feel like they've won a small battle and gives us latitude on other fronts then I say let them keep it. Same could be said for the one per 30 day rule...IMO it's not a big deal compared to the others.
  #442  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:06 PM
aileron's Avatar
aileron aileron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PRK
Posts: 3,250
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Well, I guess I will just say "Yaeh...."


Not P or I but we won.

ETA: At least my feelings about how Sotomayer would rule were spot on and I don't have to question her position in the future.
__________________
Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction... Mark Twain


Last edited by aileron; 06-28-2010 at 12:09 PM..
  #443  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:10 PM
socalblue socalblue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 745
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
CCW issuance negates the 1000' GFSZ for those with a permit, right? I agree that issuance is key. The GFSZ as relates to OC is another matter, and one that would drive a lot of emotion from the anti's. Might not be a winner and a poor case could backfire badly.

AB962.... good luck, IMO. GCA68 had a registration requirement for ammo, BATFE re-wrote the regs to get rid of it because it was a waste of time and resources. I don't know that the law itself was changed or repealed let alone challenged, however, I also have to think it could well stand scrutiny just as DROS almost certainly can under a compelling interest of the state argument. Unless AB962 is struck (as it rightly should be) under interstate commerce, we may well be stuck with it until the state comes to the same conclusion that BATFE did.

Waiting periods... again, I think not a lot of traction there. Yeah it's foolish, however I have a hunch it would be a hard row to hoe to get to "unreasonable restriction". Now if there were some modifications to the waiting period, such as CCW holder exempt or subsequent purchases subject only to NICS (like many other states), then that would be a win to me.

The roster... this is right up there with CCW, IMO. The very idea of the roster itself, when combined with the LEO exemption (equal protection argument), is absurd on it's face. The roster falling will open the door to far deeper penetrations of the farce that is much of California's gun law.

AWB... getting the ban overturned is, to me, a high priority, but there are potential land mines for us in that issue so I believe it is going to have to wait it's turn farther down the list. I wouldn't count on success and have a feeling that we may never get rid of the BB.

But that's just one lay opinion. I am certain the the right people already have the strategy outlined over a period of years. And I trust them to know exactly what they are doing.
I think at this point the roster would be the next win. Should be an easy argument now that the CA roster regulations, as currently written, are defective & violate due process.

This is a perfect time for Jerry Brown to show he in fact is pro-2A. As AG he could easily order a stipulation in the Peña case that would result in cleaning up or even eliminating the roster.

On that note Brown could release a new AG opinion on good cause. Doing so would over ride the current (1970's) AG opinion & go a long way toward resolving Sykes.

AB962 is low hanging fruit outside the 2A area (Interstate Commerce Clause). I suspect we will hear more on that soon.
  #444  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:11 PM
Sinixstar Sinixstar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,520
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny1 View Post
Does this bother anyone else?

No mention of this on local news.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/index

But they have plenty of coverage of Kagen.
Not really.
McDonald simply doesn't interest a majority of people. Only people who care about it are those who have taken a strong opinion on one side of the issue or the other. This is a majority of people nation-wide.

As for Kagen - doesn't much matter. She's replacing an already anti-2nd justice. At worst she'll maintain the 5-4 split.
  #445  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:11 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,665
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Originally Posted by guayuque
"Right people" Who are they? Reactionaries with no training in the practice of law?

here
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/board

The "right people"
__________________
CZ 75 SP-01 ROCKS!
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"
  #446  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:12 PM
Milsurp Collector's Avatar
Milsurp Collector Milsurp Collector is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 4,366
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravedigger View Post
Am I the only one who is depressed by this decision?

This whole 2nd amendment fight in California, NJ, MA, Chicago, DC, NYC is like a never-ending video game, ...
Bold text added. The vast majority of the country isn't playing the video game you speak of.



If you are tired of playing the video game all you have to do is move a few hundred miles N, NE, E, or SE and it's instantly



and you can start really having fun!
  #447  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:12 PM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 11,816
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
It's never too late to say WOO HOO!!


It is a victory, and I don't want to sound pessimistic, but I almost see what the nay sayers are saying.

Part of the problem is, due to the efforts of the CGF, and the powers that be, we already had very good intel about the outcome of the decision. Due to who was writing the majority opinion, we already knew we won; before today, the only thing we did not know is to what degree we won. Because today was not the "pie in the sky" P and I, incorporation, AND strict scrutiny, the only thing we basically did today was win the right to file more lawsuits, pay more money, and waste more time. As a result, all we did was win; none of the major goals were addressed so we only gained an inch so people are frustrated. Had we not been so well informed, we might have taken the news with greater zeal.

To those that were not terribly impressed, all I can say is look at any of the other constitutional fights in the past. Emancipation, women's lib, Civil rights, the first amendment.... et cetera... these fights took DECADES. We have gone from "no right to own guns at all" to "right to own guns in the home", a 180 degree turn in less than 4 years. We are WELL ahead of the curve in our fight. People had to die in other causes that were worth fighting; we have come farther without bloodshed. Before the last few years, the SCOTUS had not heard a gun case in 50 years. We are at the beginning of a long fight. All being said, I am very optimistic about the future!

Nicely Stated!! WooHoo!!
__________________
<img src=http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/San-Benito.jpg border=0 alt= />[IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
We will win. We are right. We will never stop fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisianagirl View Post
Our fate is ours alone to decide as long as we remain armed heavily enough to dictate it.
  #448  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:22 PM
MaxPower's Avatar
MaxPower MaxPower is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 91
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad View Post
MAYBE
Ive used this analogy before..... Ever watch Pro Wrestling? The Script for the Tag Team matches is almost always the same.... There is a small, well loved "Good guy" (the gun owners), he has a BIG strong partner (The Pro 2a Attorneys) the Small good guyy is in the ring and the bad guys (The anti gun politicians and anti gun groups) are taking turn pummeling him..... Blatantly breaking the rules to the crowds dismay.... Each time it looks like the good guy is going to tag in his partner, the bad guys cheat and pull him back in the middle of the ring.... When the strong partner tries to rush the ring on his own the Ref (the Judges) push him back out because he didnt make the tag...

And then the good guy builds up this incredible surge of strength... He reaches out his hand as far as he can, and the tag is made... And the big strong partner runs into the ring and cleans house....

McDonald is the TAG... The attorneys can now enter the ring... And SUE for the gun owners rights....
I'm still reading this thread, but this is my favorite analogy/explanation so far. Just awesome. If you can't underastand it in wrestling terms, then you're doomed. Haaa!

Glad SCOTUS got it right. Much more to go... keep donating to those causes that fight for our rights.
  #449  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:24 PM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,006
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mousegun View Post

What this means to me is that up until the McDonald decision I could not use the protection of the Second Amendment against the application of California gun law that might limit or forbid my ownership and reasonable use of firearms. After McDonald I, as a lawful citizen of California, may now use the Second Amendment as a defense and I now have standing to sue for infringement of my Second Amendment right.

Do I have that correct? I don't wanna post anything stupid, although I may already have.
This is substantially correct, however, I think formally speaking I'd say something like "up until the McDonald case no one had noticed that you could use the protection of the Second Amendment against the application of California gun law." The Supreme Court's position isn't that there's some new right, here - it's that you have always had the right to own and bear arms, and since the ratification of the 14th it has always applied to the states. It's just that no one has ever enforced it, and any opinions to the contrary from lower courts were in error.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
  #450  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:27 PM
mzimmers's Avatar
mzimmers mzimmers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Central CA, USA
Posts: 1,503
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legasat View Post
Feinstein spouts off in the CBS article:

Supreme Court Gun Rights Decision: A Win or a Setback?
Check out Bloomberg's comments...this guy simply redefines disingenuity:

Quote:
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has pressed for tighter gun laws and enforcement, released a relatively upbeat statement following the decision, saying today's ruling and the D.C. ruling "both make clear that we can work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens."

"That's what New York City has always done," he said.
Really? NYC has always respected the constitutional rights of its residents? That must come as a pleasant surprise to all those who wanted to own handguns there but ran into a tangle of red tape.
__________________
Michael Zimmers
Staff Writer
www.scopedin.com
  #451  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:28 PM
Zwingli Zwingli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 116
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

A further benefit of this decision that is not in the discussion, and one that may be just as valuable, is the check that this now puts on future laws not only laws that may be overturned--any future California laws will now be made in this context.



And yes I know the legislature (with the Gov) can pass whatever it wants making it the law before a court strikes it down. They can violate the constitution of the state and the Fed all day long with the bills they pass. They can ban all guns effective 2:00pm today if they want. Though it probably wouldn't last till 3:00pm. The US legislature has in the past passed the exact same law that was overturned by the SC just to thumb their nose at them (even though it may not be enforceable).
  #452  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:29 PM
gunn's Avatar
gunn gunn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,517
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny1 View Post
Does this bother anyone else?

No mention of this on local news.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/index

But they have plenty of coverage of Kagen.
FWIW, it was pretty well covered on NPR this morning (Morning Edition). Over lunch, I also heard them chatting about it on Talk of the Nation.


(paraphrased)
The gist of the commentary wasn't that this was a "bad thing" but that it was merely a step.
Q: Do any laws infringing upon gun ownership (magazine restrictions, licensing requirements, etc) outside the home change?

A: Nope, not yet said a lawyer.



---
After reading all of these McD threads, I seem to hear that the next steps should be taken in 60-90 days at the earliest. Since some lawsuits were already pending though, I'm hoping that we should start seeing changes in <2 years (the approx time between the Heller decision and now).

I'm willing to be patient.... and so should the rest of you.

-g
__________________
Play it Forward Thread: Share with your Fellow Calgunners by Giving Something for FREE and Take Something you Need for FREE!
  #453  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:30 PM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,006
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny1 View Post
This is more of a crime than trying to take away our guns! Not pro or con, just nothing.
Might I suggest a different, more optimistic interpretation: "The Supreme Court making a finding in favor of gun rights really isn't news, anymore."
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
  #454  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:30 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzimmers View Post
Check out Bloomberg's comments...this guy simply redefines disingenuity:

Really? NYC has always respected the constitutional rights of its residents? That must come as a pleasant surprise to all those who wanted to own handguns there but ran into a tangle of red tape.
Yeah, just like when I visit NYC and I'm allowed to bring a handgun from my home state to keep in my hotel room for protection.

Oh wait.....
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
  #455  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:35 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad View Post
Ive used this analogy before..... Ever watch Pro Wrestling? The Script for the Tag Team matches is almost always the same.... There is a small, well loved "Good guy" (the gun owners), he has a BIG strong partner (The Pro 2a Attorneys) the Small good guyy is in the ring and the bad guys (The anti gun politicians and anti gun groups) are taking turn pummeling him..... Blatantly breaking the rules to the crowds dismay.... Each time it looks like the good guy is going to tag in his partner, the bad guys cheat and pull him back in the middle of the ring.... When the strong partner tries to rush the ring on his own the Ref (the Judges) push him back out because he didnt make the tag...

And then the good guy builds up this incredible surge of strength... He reaches out his hand as far as he can, and the tag is made... And the big strong partner runs into the ring and cleans house....

McDonald is the TAG... The attorneys can now enter the ring... And SUE for the gun owners rights....
Excellent analogy.... you are my new hero...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
  #456  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:42 PM
odysseus's Avatar
odysseus odysseus is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 10,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

!!!!!YES!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by afro View Post
Got a kick out of this too...
__________________
"Just leave me alone, I know what to do." - Kimi Raikkonen

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.'
- John Adams

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
  #457  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:45 PM
Fjold's Avatar
Fjold Fjold is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Bakersfield
Posts: 20,603
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseus View Post
!!!!!YES!!!!!


I don't care who you are, that's funny!
__________________
Frank


One rifle, one planet - Holland's 375

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/member8325.png

Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF

Last edited by Fjold; 06-28-2010 at 12:48 PM..
  #458  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:47 PM
odysseus's Avatar
odysseus odysseus is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 10,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes - she has been going around the media circles all day about this. She was on the radio earlier being interviewed and is saying the same thing about US v. Miller, like a broken record.

Quote:
Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California said she is "extremely dismayed" by the decision, which she said holds "that common sense state and local gun laws across the country now will be subject to federal lawsuits."

"This decision and its predecessor -- the District of Columbia v. Heller -- have essentially disregarded the precedent of 71 years embedded in the United States v. Miller, a 1939 case," she said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legasat View Post
Feinstein spouts off in the CBS article:

Supreme Court Gun Rights Decision: A Win or a Setback?
__________________
"Just leave me alone, I know what to do." - Kimi Raikkonen

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.'
- John Adams

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
  #459  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:56 PM
grammaton76's Avatar
grammaton76 grammaton76 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,540
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

To address the NUMEROUS comments below about the 5-4 split...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunday View Post
4 don't like the Constitution. Danger!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelKent View Post
Incorporating the first amendment free speech was a 7-2 decision. Establishment clause of religion was a 5-4 decision, freedom of press was also a 5-4. Freedom of assembly and free exercise were both unanimous.

I think most people here aren’t familiar with the Supreme Court, a 5-4 decision is extremely common and is a rather normal result, not a “Squeeker” by any means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravedigger View Post
Am I the only one who is depressed by this decision?

...

I find the 5-4 decision to be appalling. That ALONE should be grounds for an immediate nationwide effort to remove those four gutless justices who CLEARLY have an agenda behind their decisions, who hate the Constitution, who hate America, and who have no business wearing those robes.
Bear in mind how the SCOTUS works. They negotiate and battle amongst each other, and form alliances one way or another.

This is a very simplified version of what's going on, but... imagine if you will an auctioneer in the chambers.

"Ok, we want the 50% gun rights win here. Aha, see, we've got 7-2. Cool."

"Hmm, let's move that slider up to 70%. How many? Oh, 6-3, still got more to go."

"Hmm, let's move it up to 80%. Hmm, got 5-4, that's still a majority."

"Oh, looks like we lose if we try 85%, it'd be 4-5 the other way. Ok, 85% won't work."

I'm sure this works like a simplified version of the Senate - add or delete content from the decision and you gain or lose votes for one side or another. In the absence of an absolutely rock-solid ruling saying "balls to the wall, EVERYTHING goes", we WANT a 5-4 split. We probably could've gotten a 6-3 or 7-2 ratio backing a more watered down version of this. Instead, we got the strongest finding that would still secure a majority.
__________________
Primary author of gunwiki.net - 'like' it on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Gunwiki/242578512591 to see whenever new content gets added!
  #460  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:58 PM
Fulgore243 Fulgore243 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milsurp Collector View Post
Bold text added. The vast majority of the country isn't playing the video game you speak of.

When I saw that image I was reminded of the US Department of Justice's "map of gang membership."

  #461  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:02 PM
Sinixstar Sinixstar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,520
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
Yeah, just like when I visit NYC and I'm allowed to bring a handgun from my home state to keep in my hotel room for protection.

Oh wait.....
Just like when I moved to NYC not terribly long ago, I didn't have to make arrangements to have my guns stored in another state until I pay $1000+ and wait at least 6 months for permits, assuming i'm "allowed" to have permits in the first place.


oh wait....
  #462  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:05 PM
RomanDad's Avatar
RomanDad RomanDad is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 92 acres of free Kentuckiana
Posts: 3,482
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
Excellent analogy.... you are my new hero...
LOL... Thanks... I better dust off my Luchador mask....

El Abogado del Diablo!

__________________
Life is too short to drive a Ferrari...


Last edited by RomanDad; 06-28-2010 at 1:07 PM..
  #463  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:05 PM
orangeusa's Avatar
orangeusa orangeusa is offline
Not a Mod
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,496
iTrader: 75 / 100%
Thumbs up

Did you click on the 'discuss' on the Wiki Brady Campaign page?

It's full of fun!!
  #464  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:06 PM
mzimmers's Avatar
mzimmers mzimmers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Central CA, USA
Posts: 1,503
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinixstar View Post
Just like when I moved to NYC not terribly long ago, I didn't have to make arrangements to have my guns stored in another state until I pay $1000+ and wait at least 6 months for permits, assuming i'm "allowed" to have permits in the first place.


oh wait....
Well that's what those New Yorkers get when they vote for morons like Bloomberg.

Oh, wait...
__________________
Michael Zimmers
Staff Writer
www.scopedin.com
  #465  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:07 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hvengel View Post
The term is "well regulated" and it has a completely different meaning than "regulated". Therefore "well regulated" means working correctly, correctly adjusted, functioning as intended and so on. From the same dictionary:

Orderly:... 2. Not ruinultuous; Well regulated.

Time keeping (horology) is one of my hobbies. When horologists see a clock, watch or other time piece that keeps very good time we say it is "well regulated".

People who have a double barreled gun will say the gun is "well regulated" if both barrels shoot to the same point of aim.

In both of these cases the term "well regulated" means to function corrected or properly adjusted and this is how it should be read when reading the 2nd Amendment.

With respect to the militia this means properly equipped, trained and organized. Keep in mind that at that time there were laws that required (almost) everyone (males between 16 and 50 for example) to be members of the militia and to supply the arms necessary to do what a militiaman needed (IE. they had to own a rifle and ammo and other equipment) and to show up for drill. The officers for the militia were to be appointed by a process as set forth by the state and so on. If these conditions were in place the militia was "well regulated" meaning that they had officers, regular drill (training) and each member had the required rifle and ammo. That the militia was functional. Notice that this has almost nothing to do with the regulation of arms other than what arms are required for militiamen. In modern terms this would be like requiring all those who are part of the militia (according to current US code all males between the ages of 18 and 45 who are not part of the military or the National Guard) to own an M16 and have a certain number of magazines and a certain amount of ammo (and other things like perhaps a uniform or a back pack...).

Notice how the actual meaning of a "well regulated" militia takes things in the opposite direction from what the gun banners want since it would result in most of the population being armed like a typical US Army infantry member. Thus they try to confuse folks by bringing up the definition of regulated but ignoring the meaning of "well regulated".
And remember that the Miller case from the 30s ruled that sawed off shotguns could be banned because they had no military utility. The SCOTUS essentially declared that military arms and those similar or interchangeable with military arms are those most protected by the 2nd Amendment.
This means ARs and standard capacity (30 round) mags, since these would allow a citizen militia member to integrate into a National Guard unit with the least number of supply issues. It also means that "militia" weapons need "evil features" like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors.
I won't argue that they need to be selective fire assault rifles, but they should have as many common parts and features as possible with the military's individual weapons - including ammunition, magazines, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and the ability to rapidly change magazines.
  #466  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:07 PM
smallshot13 smallshot13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sacramento County
Posts: 350
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post

This is a perfect time for Jerry Brown to show he in fact is pro-2A. As AG he could easily order a stipulation in the Peña case that would result in cleaning up or even eliminating the roster.

On that note Brown could release a new AG opinion on good cause. Doing so would over ride the current (1970's) AG opinion & go a long way toward resolving Sykes.

AB962 is low hanging fruit outside the 2A area (Interstate Commerce Clause). I suspect we will hear more on that soon.
This is one of the most pertinent posts in this thread. Those CalGunners who have posted their very strong support for JB should be contacting him/his campaign immediately and requesting proactive response.

Is there a longer list of previous court cases decided prominantly on the lack of a 2A like clause in the CA constitution? Those should be brought up to JB as well, challenging their basis of decision and requesting review and consideration of invalidation of the specific statutes they were decided on.
  #467  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:09 PM
bobswire's Avatar
bobswire bobswire is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 50
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Good news and be thankful it's a close call at 5-4 , it represents the even divide of our country. I'm liberal in some things and conservative on others. I don't want either side to
enjoy Carte Blanche.
  #468  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:18 PM
R7MR7M R7MR7M is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default brady wiki

I wish I had seen that brady wiki page when it still showed the hate group reference. It appears as though it has been modified to remove that portion.

  #469  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:19 PM
heist1 heist1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Due process is b.s. the constitution says PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.. article 4 section 2
  #470  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:21 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Really not pertinent or well-founded advice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smallshot13 View Post
This is one of the most pertinent posts in this thread. Those CalGunners who have posted their very strong support for JB should be contacting him/his campaign immediately and requesting proactive response.

Is there a longer list of previous court cases decided prominantly on the lack of a 2A like clause in the CA constitution? Those should be brought up to JB as well, challenging their basis of decision and requesting review and consideration of invalidation of the specific statutes they were decided on.
__________________
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.
  #471  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:24 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California said she is "extremely dismayed" by the decision, which she said holds "that common sense state and local gun laws across the country now will be subject to federal lawsuits."

"This decision and its predecessor -- the District of Columbia v. Heller -- have essentially disregarded the precedent anti-constitutional and rights abridging travesty of 71 years embedded in the United States v. Miller, a 1939 case," she said.
There fixed it for you and her as well
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
  #472  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:28 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzimmers View Post
From the article:

Quote:
In the 19th century, the court limited the reach of the Bill of Rights and said it put limits only on the federal government.
Is this really true? If so, this is the most surprising thing I've read all day.
Not quite. It was actually the intention for the founders that the Bill of Rights should apply only to the Federal Government, it was not a 19th century construct. The entire purpose of the 14th amendment was to extend those protections to people (primarily blacks) in the South who were being re-subjugated by various laws and codes (known as black codes) in the wake of their emancipation via the Civil War.

It is a shame that so many of us were so poorly informed in school. I too knew nothing of this until McDonald made it important to my daily life.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
  #473  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:30 PM
gunRfun's Avatar
gunRfun gunRfun is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bulletbutton, CA
Posts: 712
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

In celebration of today, I am going to buy a new handgun or new lower.
  #474  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:33 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
It was actually the intention for the founders that the Bill of Rights should apply only to the Federal Government, it was not a 19th century construct. The entire purpose of the 14th amendment was to extend those protections to people (primarily blacks) in the South who were being re-subjugated by various laws and codes (known as black codes) in the wake of their emancipation via the Civil War.

It is a shame that so many of us were so poorly informed in school. I too knew nothing of this until McDonald made it important to my daily life.
Me as well. I thank Gene H and 7x57 for prodding me into actually reading up on this. It is a monumental shame that every child educated in this nation doesn't learn the fundamental principles and history behind the rights that have made the US a unique nation--both over 2 centuries ago at its founding and still today.

Today, we became even more unique. I believe we are unique in the G20 (ironically meeting right now) in being allowed the possession of firearms as a basic right.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
  #475  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:35 PM
louisianagirl louisianagirl is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
I can't believe the fate of our rights as Americans were hinged on a 5-4 decision. My God!
no. the fate of the court hinged on the decision. our fate is ours alone to decide as long as we remain armed heavily enough to dictate it.
  #476  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:38 PM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 11,816
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

17,000+ Views!!!!!!!
__________________
<img src=http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/San-Benito.jpg border=0 alt= />[IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
We will win. We are right. We will never stop fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisianagirl View Post
Our fate is ours alone to decide as long as we remain armed heavily enough to dictate it.
  #477  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:40 PM
mzimmers's Avatar
mzimmers mzimmers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Central CA, USA
Posts: 1,503
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli View Post
It is a monumental shame that every child educated in this nation doesn't learn the fundamental principles and history behind the rights that have made the US a unique nation--both over 2 centuries ago at its founding and still today.
Well, in defense of the educators who had the misfortune of having me in their classes, it's quite possible this topic was accurately covered, but I was oblivious to it. To say history was my worst subject is an understatement...despite being a Phi Beta Kappa student in college, I got my first "A" in history -- that is, first in my life -- in my final quarter of my senior year at Cal.

But I still find it amazing that this is true. So, the founding fathers wished to protect us from the evils of an oppressive federal government, but they were OK with subordinate governments co-opting civil liberties? I'm not saying I dispute this, but it sure sounds hard to believe.
__________________
Michael Zimmers
Staff Writer
www.scopedin.com
  #478  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:43 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseus View Post
!!!!!YES!!!!!
Someone has been doing some Wiki editing.
  #479  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:47 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzimmers View Post
But I still find it amazing that this is true. So, the founding fathers wished to protect us from the evils of an oppressive federal government, but they were OK with subordinate governments co-opting civil liberties? I'm not saying I dispute this, but it sure sounds hard to believe.
It is important to put the Constitution in context. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Articles created a confederation of independent nations, each "state" was a nation at this time and as nations they each had their own founding documents that spelled out the powers of the states. The reason the Bill of Rights was written and added to the constitution was to assure the several states that the new Federal Government was not going to usurp their police powers within their own borders. As such the primary purpose of the BoR was a restriction on Federal interference in what the states, at that time, saw as their (and their citizens') most fundamental rights. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and BoR there were some states who had official state religions which the BoR expressly prohibited the Feds from doing.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
  #480  
Old 06-28-2010, 1:48 PM
Sinixstar Sinixstar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,520
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzimmers View Post
Well that's what those New Yorkers get when they vote for morons like Bloomberg.

Oh, wait...
I'm not familiar with Bloomberg having any idea of his own in terms of fighting crime, or even gun control. He basically carrying Giuliani's torch on those issues...
Closed Thread

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 5:26 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.