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
  #121  
Old 11-04-2012, 6:31 PM
GettoPhilosopher's Avatar
GettoPhilosopher GettoPhilosopher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Default

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

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

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 Just because we haven't repealed the AWB 100% at this very moment doesn't mean we haven't made it almost irrelevant AND decisively killed the only serious attempt to strengthen the ban in a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

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

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





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

CGF Successes (2008-Present) [This list needs an update, there are more successes or pending cases...]
CGF Projects Underway:
  • Peña - Handgun Roster is Unconstitutional: Peña v. Cid
  • Richards v. Sheriff Ed Prieto, County of Yolo
  • Teixeira v. County of Alameda FFL dealers zoning
  • Silvester v. Kamala Harris, 10 day waiting period
  • CGF v. County of San Mateo, firerarm carry ban in parks
  • Scocca v. Sheriff Laurie Smith, County of Santa Clara, LTC policy
  • Richards v. Kamala HarrisAW Ban unconstitutionally vague
  • Lu v. Sheriff Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, LTC policy
  • Rossow v. Sheriff Mark Pazin, County of Merced LTC policy
  • Peterson - Partial funding of Peterson v. LaCabe, (right to carry/travel): http://bit.ly/972uyl
  • OOIDA - AB962 (ammo ban) is pre-empted by Federal law: OOIDA_v._Lindley
  • Min. Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program for firearms issues: http://bit.ly/buY43R
  • Inquiries into Livermore PD UOC policy (ongoing): http://bit.ly/ajZJd0
  • Challenged DOJ rulemaking on DROS fees, demanded audit: http://bit.ly/cX6rvA
  • Several undisclosed legal and grassroots actions.
This is all being accomplished without any paid staff, the only people getting paid are lawyers.
What do you expect?


.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-04-2012, 6:37 PM
GettoPhilosopher's Avatar
GettoPhilosopher GettoPhilosopher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Long, Appropriations Committee Analysis of SB249
4) Opposition. Numerous g un-related organizations oppose this bill, generally on the basis that
it will effectively ban a weapon owned by tens of thousands of Californians, and that it will
prove to be an ineffective measure, as gun owners interested in bullet-button weapons will simply move to semi-automatic rifles that lack the Penal Code-referenced features that qualify the guns as assault weapons, and therefore can use a detachable magazine.
(...)
b) The California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees calls SB 249 "possibly the
largest and most costly unconstitutional government taking of private property in
Califomia history" and states that "If SB 249 passes in any form, Cal-FFL and its
members will, without fail, immediately file a federal civil rights lawsuit -likely in
cooperation with The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and
others-seeking injunctive and declaratory relief."
Geoff Long cited StopSB249/Cal-FFL/CGF letters, arguments, and threats of lawsuits for the Appropriations Committee Analysis. Why? Because we're losing? No, because we won this fight and have continued to take more ground every year. The fact that the threat of a potential CGF/Cal-FFL/SAF is something the Appropriations Committee considered while discussing a potential gun control bill is downright amazing.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-04-2012, 9:04 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,923
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

with all the facebook folks here I'm surprised there are no interesting comments in the comment section, we are all to busy rewinding walking dead I guess
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-04-2012, 9:07 PM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,359
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu View Post
I happened to talk to this individual that night. It was definitely a BB equipped rifle.

He was told they were charging him with a felony, but did not arrest him. He was also informed he could pick up the rifle the next day.

This reeks of illegal seizure.
Unless he just happened to have filed for a CoE from CADOJ about 6 weeks earlier, that is a lie.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-05-2012, 2:45 AM
Carnivore's Avatar
Carnivore Carnivore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ventura County, Ca
Posts: 1,809
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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

What do you expect? Sorry they aren't going fast enough to suit you, the courts move at their own pace, and we've only had the Second Amendment in California since June of 2010.
No need at all to be sorry just please show me where I blamed CGF or the NRA or any other gun rights group for this and all will be good.

Just because I don't like how slow or none existent the movement is doesn't mean I blame the people working for the gun community nor that I don't appreciate what they are doing. I just realized that there are two definitions of winning and mine isn't even close to theirs. Now I can slink off and go "cry in my beer" and you all can just keep "WINNING".
__________________
Quote:
Tom’s right, and the right of any other citizen, to arm himself should not be subject to approval by a civil servant who will not be present to protect them.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-05-2012, 4:05 AM
Flouncer's Avatar
Flouncer Flouncer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Foothills, Northern Ca
Posts: 904
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any update at close of business today would be interesting. Good luck folks.
__________________
A Nation of Sheep Will Beget a Government of Wolves
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-05-2012, 4:57 AM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GettoPhilosopher View Post
Geoff Long cited StopSB249/Cal-FFL/CGF letters, arguments, and threats of lawsuits for the Appropriations Committee Analysis. Why? Because we're losing? No, because we won this fight and have continued to take more ground every year. The fact that the threat of a potential CGF/Cal-FFL/SAF is something the Appropriations Committee considered while discussing a potential gun control bill is downright amazing.
I wouldn't count on that being the entire reasoning that 249 was defeated. Actually it wasn't totally defeated because it only got shut down in a committee. With this being an election year, and with a ballot replete with gratuitous tax measures for the wanting legislature, many of his senate colleagues may have been encouraging him to wait until next year, after they don't have as much at stake, and after they might pick up a bigger majority in the senate, and after they no longer have to worry that people angry over gun control might just be more apt to vote no on tax increases too.
Sure they're afraid of the gun lobby, but only as an irritating component of their constituency. Not necessarily a pivotal one all the time, and not even where it concerns gun legislation only, 'cause they been a 'passin' that all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-05-2012, 5:56 AM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Can we end the thread jack and get back to the OP story? What is happening with this kid?
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-05-2012, 6:38 AM
Galli1565 Galli1565 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 378
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

I don't believe we have enough information based on what has been provided. We won't know what happened because we were not there.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-05-2012, 9:38 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
I wouldn't count on that being the entire reasoning that 249 was defeated. Actually it wasn't totally defeated because it only got shut down in a committee. With this being an election year, and with a ballot replete with gratuitous tax measures for the wanting legislature, many of his senate colleagues may have been encouraging him to wait until next year, after they don't have as much at stake, and after they might pick up a bigger majority in the senate, and after they no longer have to worry that people angry over gun control might just be more apt to vote no on tax increases too.
Sure they're afraid of the gun lobby, but only as an irritating component of their constituency. Not necessarily a pivotal one all the time, and not even where it concerns gun legislation only, 'cause they been a 'passin' that all the time.
Actually, the bill *was* "totally defeated" by definition - the bill did not pass on to the floor and the Governor. That should be the goal - getting the win as early as possible. We did that with SB 249.

Your assumptions aside, I can tell you that the Senate was fully invested in passing SB 249. Didn't you notice Steinberg being *added* to the bill and interviewing on it? I'm not sure to what degree you worked the bill but I suspect [based on your statements] that your experience was limited to arms-length advocacy.

It was the Assembly that wasn't happy about SB 249 (for a number of reasons), not the least of which that we'd proven far more capable of staying with the bill (with increasing force) than Yee and the Senate had thought possible.

When the Assembly had all sorts of other bills to deal with and pass (many bills THEY wanted to pass), we turned SB 249 enough of a thorn that Yee's forced amendments became terminally poisonous.

-Brandon
__________________
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
  #131  
Old 11-05-2012, 9:40 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galli1565 View Post
I don't believe we have enough information based on what has been provided. We won't know what happened because we were not there.
We *will* know what happened. The record will reflect the facts and those facts will be evaluated. If, as I suspect, the seizure was unlawful, then Arcata PD has some 'splaining to do.

-Brandon
__________________
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
  #132  
Old 11-05-2012, 10:07 AM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
We *will* know what happened. The record will reflect the facts and those facts will be evaluated. If, as I suspect, the seizure was unlawful, then Arcata PD has some 'splaining to do.

-Brandon
What's your timeline on getting a report/comment/whatever from the agency? Lemme guess: 2 WEEKS! (IBTW)
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 11-05-2012, 10:59 AM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
. Didn't you notice Steinberg being *added* to the bill and interviewing on it? .

-Brandon
No, I wasn't as active in 249 as other bills. It wasn't a hill we had staked out. But Steinberg is a manipulator. He seldom votes on anything until the last, so he can use his position to try and coerce whomever for concessions, favors, possibly even contributions. Inserting himself on that is not surprising, nor necessarily attributable to a factor you allude to.

Time might tell here. If the legislature picks up more beholden democrats, I'd be worried that more legislation along the 249 line will be served up. That might amplify if prop 30 passes too. I don't believe they fear the gun lobby, or gun owners like they did years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 11-05-2012, 12:01 PM
GettoPhilosopher's Avatar
GettoPhilosopher GettoPhilosopher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Default

I never claimed it was the sole reason; I pointed out that a significant portion of the assembly appropriations committee analysis of opposition/issues centered on StopSB249.org and our arguments.

I don't mean to be snide, but frankly it's the committee's own records vs. your conjecture.

We killed it completely this year, and are ready to fight any future attempts to resurrect it. If you'd like to be a part of that effort, please follow the link in my signature and sign upfor CGF grassroots efforts. I'll put you to good use.

We made a popular gun control bill politically toxic enough a Democrat committee chair killed it without a hearing. Call that what you will, but the common word is "winning".


Brandon, help me out here....wasn't there an interview or statement from Mike Gatto re SB249/CGF/et al?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
I wouldn't count on that being the entire reasoning that 249 was defeated. Actually it wasn't totally defeated because it only got shut down in a committee. With this being an election year, and with a ballot replete with gratuitous tax measures for the wanting legislature, many of his senate colleagues may have been encouraging him to wait until next year, after they don't have as much at stake, and after they might pick up a bigger majority in the senate, and after they no longer have to worry that people angry over gun control might just be more apt to vote no on tax increases too.
Sure they're afraid of the gun lobby, but only as an irritating component of their constituency. Not necessarily a pivotal one all the time, and not even where it concerns gun legislation only, 'cause they been a 'passin' that all the time.


Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 11-05-2012, 12:29 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
No, I wasn't as active in 249 as other bills. It wasn't a hill we had staked out. But Steinberg is a manipulator. He seldom votes on anything until the last, so he can use his position to try and coerce whomever for concessions, favors, possibly even contributions. Inserting himself on that is not surprising, nor necessarily attributable to a factor you allude to.
Except when it is, like here.

Quote:
Time might tell here. If the legislature picks up more beholden democrats, I'd be worried that more legislation along the 249 line will be served up. That might amplify if prop 30 passes too. I don't believe they fear the gun lobby, or gun owners like they did years ago.
I don't disagree that the Legislature doesn't fear the gun lobby; however, I seek to evolve the gun lobby. We don't have the benefit of a magic 8 ball and there's no way to know how our evolution will positively affect California gun politics in the next decade. One thing is for certain, however, and that's the "same old same old" gun lobby methods are nearly useless. If our only real and consistent play is defensive, then lets build a better defense.

-Brandon
__________________
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
  #136  
Old 11-05-2012, 12:59 PM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I don't disagree that the Legislature doesn't fear the gun lobby; however, I seek to evolve the gun lobby. We don't have the benefit of a magic 8 ball and there's no way to know how our evolution will positively affect California gun politics in the next decade. One thing is for certain, however, and that's the "same old same old" gun lobby methods are nearly useless.
-Brandon
If you want to evolve the gun lobby into something more effective, I'd suggest modeling it around those of the latino lobby, the immigration lobby, the illegal alien lobby, or the gay/trans etc lobby. They seem to have the attention of the voting powers in both houses. For being a stated minority demographic, they seem to get bills passed and vetoed at an astounding rate. I'd place gun owner demographics above some, but not all of those in number, but certainly receiving a whole lot less respect from the legislature.
Unfortunately, one component of that would be importing more gun friendly voters into this state, and that is a non-starter since we cannot bribe them here.

Quote:
If our only real and consistent play is defensive, then lets build a better defense.
I'm not against building defenses at all. Since gun law infractions are inherently penal in nature, that needs to be a significant portion of the battle.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 11-05-2012, 1:05 PM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
Unfortunately, one component of that would be importing more gun friendly voters into this state, and that is a non-starter since we cannot bribe them here.
No need to import them if we create them here. That is the only way we will win, long term.

That means making gun rights and gun ownership a bigger tent.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 11-05-2012, 6:25 PM
SoCal Gunner's Avatar
SoCal Gunner SoCal Gunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 1,511
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whack View Post
Can we end the thread jack and get back to the OP story? What is happening with this kid?

No Kidding - Take all that other crap to a new thread about "who is winning" or whatever. This thread is supposed to be about; the alleged illegal seizure of a firearm by police.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 11-05-2012, 6:57 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miztic View Post
If they are giving him his gun back and he wasn't arrested, sounds like an overzealous cop who found out after the fact that the guy was in fact legal?
And that overzealous cop needs to be corrected to make sure they never make that mistake again.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 11-05-2012, 6:59 PM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
You either support the right to own and carry a legally configured rifle or you do not-

If rights were predicated upon the use of flawless judgement, we would either not exercise them in the abundance of caution or abandon those with whom we disagree. That is where we as gunowners are being used against each other. Ante up or anti up. You decide.
Getting back on track....

I think that this is where we as a community can fail ourselves. Leaping to the support of someone who's judgment is so flawed, their actions are so stupid and the decisions they make are so selfish that they don't deserve our support.

People here all the time jump on any LEO who says "let the facts come out" or "give him the benefit of the doubt" when a LEO does something, but think nothing of leaping to this guys support.

How is that much different?

I mean, supporting the really stupid actions of this guy just because he is a gun owner is like supporting someone who goes running into a cross walk when they just know that traffic is too close to stop. Hey, they had the “right of way”, right! Nothing they did could be considered wrong right…I mean…They had the right away,,,,screw common sense, screw good judgment….THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY…They could do no wrong!!!

Blind loyalty is not always a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 11-05-2012, 7:18 PM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I mean, supporting the really stupid actions of this guy just because he is a gun owner is like supporting someone who goes running into a cross walk when they just know that traffic is too close to stop. Hey, they had the “right of way”, right! Nothing they did could be considered wrong right…I mean…They had the right away,,,,screw common sense, screw good judgment….THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY…They could do no wrong!!!

Blind loyalty is not always a good thing.
We don't know that he did that yet, so in the interim, he gets defended...to a point. The loyalty is to the constitution, not the individual in a case like this.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 11-05-2012, 7:22 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Getting back on track....

I think that this is where we as a community can fail ourselves. Leaping to the support of someone who's judgment is so flawed, their actions are so stupid and the decisions they make are so selfish that they don't deserve our support.

People here all the time jump on any LEO who says "let the facts come out" or "give him the benefit of the doubt" when a LEO does something, but think nothing of leaping to this guys support.

How is that much different?

I mean, supporting the really stupid actions of this guy just because he is a gun owner is like supporting someone who goes running into a cross walk when they just know that traffic is too close to stop. Hey, they had the “right of way”, right! Nothing they did could be considered wrong right…I mean…They had the right away,,,,screw common sense, screw good judgment….THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY…They could do no wrong!!!

Blind loyalty is not always a good thing.
So you don't have a problem with cops violating civil rights just because you don't necessarily agree with exercising those rights?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 11-05-2012, 7:31 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Getting back on track....

I think that this is where we as a community can fail ourselves. Leaping to the support of someone who's judgment is so flawed, their actions are so stupid and the decisions they make are so selfish that they don't deserve our support.

People here all the time jump on any LEO who says "let the facts come out" or "give him the benefit of the doubt" when a LEO does something, but think nothing of leaping to this guys support.

How is that much different?

I mean, supporting the really stupid actions of this guy just because he is a gun owner is like supporting someone who goes running into a cross walk when they just know that traffic is too close to stop. Hey, they had the “right of way”, right! Nothing they did could be considered wrong right…I mean…They had the right away,,,,screw common sense, screw good judgment….THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY…They could do no wrong!!!

Blind loyalty is not always a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
We don't know that he did that yet, so in the interim, he gets defended...to a point. The loyalty is to the constitution, not the individual in a case like this.
From what I know about the circumstances, there exists no 'color' to the actions or behavior of the individual that would warrant concern either by the police or gun owning bretheren. (Unless you are of the persuasion that believes carrying any firearm in public is 'poor judgement' which is deserving of unlawful arrest and seizure...Then you would be perfectly justified in your latent hypocritical self-hating gun grabbing inclinations.)
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 11-05-2012, 7:42 PM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
From what I know about the circumstances, there exists no 'color' to the actions or behavior of the individual that would warrant concern either by the police or gun owning bretheren. (Unless you are of the persuasion that believes carrying any firearm in public is 'poor judgement' which is deserving of unlawful arrest and seizure...Then you would be perfectly justified in your latent hypocritical self-hating gun grabbing inclinations.)

I actually have grabbed a few guns in my life. From a couple drunks, a punk kid, a mentally scrambled person, and an employee who thought he was going to help out an already defused situation. Sometimes it's justified. Does that make me have latent hypocritical self-hating gun grabbing inclinations ?

We don't know what happened yet. Everything we've read is coming second hand and beyond. I like documents, testimony, records.

A story here in Sac has taken on a similar tone. A pollworker says she was fired over writing an email to the registrar because of her concern over UN observers coming to the polls here in Sac. So all these people are making all kinds of comments about jack-booted thug UN enforcers meddling in out elections, and now there was allegedly a personal threat issued to the registrar. But, next thing ya' know is the poll worker lets it out that she told the registrar she would turn the observers away. She never told me this either. I was doing a bit of work in her favor 'cause I was under the impression she was fired unfairly. The point being, people on the receiving end of government authority often meter out information about the incident on a need to know basis. If they need your help, they often relay that which would increase the chances you would do so. Most counsel here I'm sure encounter this all the time, especially where pro-bono is concerned. I'm not saying that's the case in Arcata. I'm just a natural born inquirer.

Last edited by AyatollahGondola; 11-05-2012 at 7:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 11-05-2012, 7:54 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Getting back on track....
I think that this is where we as a community can fail ourselves. Leaping to the support of someone who's judgment is so flawed, their actions are so stupid and the decisions they make are so selfish that they don't deserve our support.
As one of the people who always says “let the facts come out”, why are you even commenting on this? You should be practicing what you preach.

The community fails by taking this attitude towards any activity they don’t approve. Hunter's don’t care about AR, wood guy’s don’t care about hunting or AR, those who can carry don’t about those who cant, gun collectors don’t care…. You get the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
People here all the time jump on any LEO who says "let the facts come out" or "give him the benefit of the doubt" when a LEO does something, but think nothing of leaping to this guys support.
How is that much different?
I am sorry but this is not even close to the same thing. The LEO’s who say “let the facts come out” are not trying to prevent discuss on the topic. They are attempting to paint anyone who discusses the topic as anti-LEO. So yeah this is completely different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I mean, supporting the really stupid actions of this guy just because he is a gun owner is like supporting someone who goes running into a cross walk when they just know that traffic is too close to stop. Hey, they had the “right of way”, right! Nothing they did could be considered wrong right…I mean…They had the right away,,,,screw common sense, screw good judgment….THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY…They could do no wrong!!!
Blind loyalty is not always a good thing.
Ironic post is ironic.

How is this anything like your situation? Was the person being reckless? No. Then your point is meaningless.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 11-05-2012, 7:55 PM
jamesob's Avatar
jamesob jamesob is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: exeter
Posts: 4,764
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I'll proudly back people who want to do stupid stuff. If he needs money for a defense, I'll send him a few bucks.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 11-05-2012, 7:59 PM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My point is, Is there anything we won't defend? Is there any point where we draw a line? Is blind devotion the best course?
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 11-05-2012, 8:12 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
My point is, Is there anything we won't defend? Is there any point where we draw a line? Is blind devotion the best course?
Yes, there are cases where I will not support someone just for being a gun owner. Actually, I don't support anyone just because they have something in common with me. I support advancing our rights.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 11-05-2012, 8:17 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
My point is, Is there anything we won't defend? Is there any point where we draw a line? Is blind devotion the best course?
Of course, if it doesn't advance our rights.

Someone simply carrying a legal firearm in a legal fashion should be supported.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 11-05-2012, 8:26 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
My point is, Is there anything we won't defend? Is there any point where we draw a line? Is blind devotion the best course?

Devotion? To the constitution of the united States? Ah.......YA
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 11-05-2012, 8:37 PM
Hdawg's Avatar
Hdawg Hdawg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Modesto
Posts: 435
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
My point is, Is there anything we won't defend? Is there any point where we draw a line? Is blind devotion the best course?
I'm nobody important here, but I'll give it a shot. As far as we know, this person committed no crime and there was no legal reason to take his rifle. If we don't defend him, who do we defend? Do we just let a rogue or uneducated cop decide that this guy shouldn't have a gun, well, just because?

I'll turn your question around. Do we just not defend people who have committed no crime and have had their rights violated? If not, where do we draw the line?

P.S. Thanks for the new sig line, CitaDel
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Ante up or anti up. You decide.
Need 22 ammo for your kids to shoot?
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 11-06-2012, 6:00 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
We don't know what happened yet. Everything we've read is coming second hand and beyond. I like documents, testimony, records.
Second hand information is impossible to avoid. The press release on the event is second hand information as well, yet we don't doubt the source or its content. I am sure the police would have liked to have painted the seizure as reasonable action to deal with a drunk, crazy, punk kid. Those details are conspicuously absent. The 'suspect' wasn't arrested, let alone booked, so we can reasonably deduce that there is no criminal conduct being alleged here.

The records you want do not exist, because they let him go. It would be easier for you to find someone with boots on the ground who witnessed the event.

I am begining to long for the days where we are innocent until being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- instead of the other way around.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 11-06-2012, 6:09 AM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Second hand information is impossible to avoid. The press release on the event is second hand information as well, yet we don't doubt the source or its content. I am sure the police would have liked to have painted the seizure as reasonable action to deal with a drunk, crazy, punk kid. Those details are conspicuously absent. The 'suspect' wasn't arrested, let alone booked, so we can reasonably deduce that there is no criminal conduct being alleged here.

The records you want do not exist, because they let him go. It would be easier for you to find someone with boots on the ground who witnessed the event.

I am begining to long for the days where we are innocent until being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- instead of the other way around.
Yes sir, but nowadays the government arrests and tries property as if it were separate from its' owner. Not saying that's the case here, but I'll be waiting for some official release
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 11-06-2012, 6:16 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
Yes sir, but nowadays the government arrests and tries property as if it were separate from its' owner. Not saying that's the case here, but I'll be waiting for some official release
You will be waiting a really long time then, unless you have filed a PRA already.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 11-06-2012, 6:46 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I mean, supporting the really stupid actions of this guy just because he is a gun owner is like supporting someone who goes running into a cross walk when they just know that traffic is too close to stop. Hey, they had the “right of way”, right! Nothing they did could be considered wrong right…I mean…They had the right away,,,,screw common sense, screw good judgment….THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY…They could do no wrong!!!

Blind loyalty is not always a good thing.
There is definitely too much blind loyalty around here, but not in this case. The guy might have been a dumbass, but so far as we know he broke no law. That is the point.

You know, Randy Weaver was supposed to be a petty unpleasant guy, too. I'm still angry his family was murdered, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
My point is, Is there anything we won't defend? Is there any point where we draw a line? Is blind devotion the best course?
Illegal or negligent behavior.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com

Last edited by Mesa Tactical; 11-06-2012 at 6:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 11-06-2012, 6:48 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat1 View Post
Devotion? To the constitution of the united States? Ah.......YA
Not saying that devotion to the constitution is a bad thing, but blind, absolute devotion to anything IS a bad thing. It also eliminates the need to think or reason and THAT is also a bad thing.

You can't just throw the "It's the constitution flag" out and be done with it EVERY TIME.....

Thought and reason have to be a factor.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 11-06-2012, 6:54 AM
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 2,423
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Not saying that devotion to the constitution is a bad thing, but blind, absolute devotion to anything IS a bad thing. It also eliminates the need to think or reason and THAT is also a bad thing.

You can't just throw the "It's the constitution flag" out and be done with it EVERY TIME.....

Thought and reason have to be a factor.
I think this is a good place to point something out for all of us to remember...

Amendments to The Constitution exist and are/were created for a reason.
"Things change, as do people and ideals." There is very little "hard and fast" in this world and in this life. So fight for what you believe in.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
In the end, time and irony always win.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 11-06-2012, 6:58 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Not saying that devotion to the constitution is a bad thing, but blind, absolute devotion to anything IS a bad thing. It also eliminates the need to think or reason and THAT is also a bad thing.

You can't just throw the "It's the constitution flag" out and be done with it EVERY TIME.....

Thought and reason have to be a factor.
If you think that's the case, you must have missed the whole open carry movement.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 11-06-2012, 7:02 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Not saying that devotion to the constitution is a bad thing, but blind, absolute devotion to anything IS a bad thing. It also eliminates the need to think or reason and THAT is also a bad thing.

You can't just throw the "It's the constitution flag" out and be done with it EVERY TIME.....

Thought and reason have to be a factor.
Okay. I will bite.

How does the Constitution not apply to this particular circumstance where an individuals lawfully owned private property is seized for public safety?

Please be sure to frame it in the context that the individual was not charged for any crime and was allowed to go after his legally configured rifle was taken from him.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 11-06-2012, 7:09 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Okay. I will bite.

How does the Constitution not apply to this particular circumstance where an individuals lawfully owned private property is seized for public safety?

Please be sure to frame it in the context that the individual was not charged for any crime and was allowed to go after his legally configured rifle was taken from him.
I cannot argue this on a constitutional level. You will win and you are right. I am simply saying (possibly playing devils advocate and possibly because the question should be asked) that at what point do we say that someone did something so stupid, so ignorant, so irresponsible that we say enough is enough….I mean he had a loaded magazine in his pocket at a party where stuff gets out of control and people drink.

My earlier analogy was weak, but it kind of applies a little……If you have a green light and you see a speeding bus coming, would you pull out in just because you had “the right of way”….?

I am just asking, are there any limits to our support, because I think this one may be getting close to that edge,,,,
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 2:29 PM.




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.