|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Status Of California Laws FAQ
Since McDonald came out, I've seen a lot of the same questions over and over, and I thought I'd put together a little FAQ about the status of California laws after McDonald and what Calguns Foundation and other groups are doing to protect our Second Amendment rights. If you have further questions that aren't on this list, just ask away in the thread. If I can answer it, and it belongs here, I'll add it to the list.
Some of this post deals with ongoing litigation. This information was last brought up to date on May 13, 2011. The latest status on the items CGF is responsible for can generally be found at the Calguns Foundation Wiki: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page The focus of this post is not to give a detailed overview of every single case we're working on. Rather, there seem to be a lot of questions about what is being done to challenge particular laws, and this is trying to answer those questions from the "What is being done to challenge the roster?" perspective, as opposed to the "What's the status of Peña?" perspective. I've also included cases that are being run by other individuals and organizations, but note I may not be up to speed on the latest information on these items. This post shouldn't be considered an up-to-the-minute status on anything, but a general clearinghouse for "what's being done about this particular law?" What Was The Decision in Heller? In Heller The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep arms for the primary purpose of self defense in the home. We're optimistic that future decisions will make it clear it also protects more than this, but that's the state of the law, today. Importantly, because this case was against laws in Washington, D.C., it only constrained the Federal government - not states, cities or counties. What Was The Decision in McDonald? In McDonald The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment also applies to the states - that states, cities and counties may not pass laws that violate the Second Amendment. What Changes Does McDonald Cause In California Law, Today? None. There is nothing that was illegal on June 1 that's legal today because of McDonald. Well, Then, What's The Big Deal About McDonald If I Still Can't Buy The Gun I Want? Courts work through a system of precedents. If a superior court says an argument is invalid, it can't be made again. Mr. Gura has been following a very clear and simple strategy to knock down the antis' arguments, one at a time. Imagine it's 1998. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You go to court, and say, "I have a Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, this law is unconstitutional." The other side would have said, "The Second Amendment confers a collective right to the states, not to an individual, so the law is fine," and you'd lose and stay in jail. Imagine it's now 2009. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You make the same argument, and their reply is, "Well, obviously, he has an individual right to own the gun at the Federal level, but the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states, so the law is fine," and you'd stay in jail. Now, it's July, 2010. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You make the same argument, and their reply is, "Well, obviously, he has an individual right to own the gun, and the Second Amendment applies that to the state of California, but Heller just says you have the right to keep it in your home for self defense, and he was out walking around," and you'd stay in jail. I know many of you are frustrated at this point, because "it never ends, we just keep filing lawsuits and keep not getting our rights back". However, the analogy has been put out that this is like a chess game, and it's a good one. You don't win a chess game on the first move. In Heller, we took their queen. In McDonald, we took a rook. As we progress, taking their capital pieces, their defense gets weaker and weaker, more vulnerable to future attacks. Let's see how the end-game might play out: Imagine it's now 2012. Alan Gura has won his North Carolina suit. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You make the same argument, and their reply is, "Well, obviously, he has an individual right to own the gun, and the Second Amendment applies that to the state of California, and he has a right to bear as well per the North Carolina case, but we have a compelling state interest in preventing people from running around in public with guns," and you'd stay in jail (though you're now at the point that you could reasonably mount a legal fight). Imagine it's now 2013. Alan Gura (or perhaps someone else) has won a case stating that, as a right that Fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms must pass the "strict scrutiny" test. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You make the same argument, and their reply is, "Well, obviously, he has an individual right to own the gun, and the Second Amendment applies that to the state of California, and he has a right to bear as well per the North Carolina case, but we have a compelling state interest in preventing people from running around in public with guns," and the judge overrules them since strict scrutiny applies, and releases you, because they are out of arguments. Your lawyer puts together a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit and recovers damages because your rights were infringed, and they train all their officers that Loaded Open Carry is legal. But, They'll Just Come Up With More Arguments! Doubtless they'll try something. But, from a legal perspective, every step they take, their arguments get easier to defeat and are legally weaker. We have a lot of great minds on our side that spend a lot of time trying to anticipate their next argument, and we're pretty confident what's left after we exhaust those arguments isn't going to be very persuasive. So, How Do We Know What To Challenge, Next? We look at the argument the other side is going to make at each point, and we bring a carefully crafted case, with sympathetic plaintiffs to attack only that argument (as much as possible - sometimes it's not possible to be that simple). Once we get to that final step - strict scrutiny for restrictions on "keep" and "bear", applied to the states - then we can unleash the great flotilla of lawsuits to challenge every single law that is causing you heartburn. Until that happens, we need to restrict what we're doing so the legal arguments we make are crisp, precise, and irrefutable. Also, some cases are likely to be politically harder than others. The more solid precedents we have that we can cite that show that gun ownership is a fundamental right, the easier it will be to convince judges that they should allow some of the less politically favorable items to be legal. What's This Whole "Scrutiny" Thing? Courts have found, over the past two centuries, that there are certain restrictions of fundamental rights that are allowed. Classic examples from the First Amendment are libel, and "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". Courts attempt to balance how fundamental the right is, versus how bad the restriction is, versus how important the goal of the restriction is. In general, laws have to have a "rational basis" - which, like most legal terms, doesn't mean what your average non-lawyer would guess. In this case, it means "Can the legislature come up with some conceivable argument for why it's a good idea?" Above that is "intermediate scrutiny", in which the government has to show that they have a compelling interest, and that the way they're achieving that is substantially related to it. For example, under intermediate scrutiny they couldn't ban the publication of all newspapers because they might contain libels. The top level is "strict scrutiny", in which the restriction must be "narrowly tailored" and be "the least restrictive means" to achieve the government's goals. This is supposed to be applied if the right is "fundamental" to our concept of "ordered liberty" (for example, as is freedom of speech). We don't yet know what standard of scrutiny the courts will hold gun laws up to. We do know from Heller it won't be "rational basis", so it's either "intermediate" or "strict". Obviously, we want strict, but we're optimistic most of the most onerous gun laws wouldn't stand up to "intermediate", either. One of our big strategic focuses right now is getting a case that is likely to get us "strict" scrutiny, as soon as possible. If we get that, we'll be able to challenge a lot more, more quickly. There is some reason to be optimistic that it will be "strict", based on the McDonald opinion's constant referral to the right as "fundamental". (Continued in first reply...)
__________________
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 Last edited by the_quark; 05-12-2011 at 11:16 PM.. Reason: Changed the update date to 1/9/11 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
(Continued from above)
Hey, This Alan Gura Guy Seems Pretty Good - Can We Get Him To Help Out, in California? Alan Gura - the attorney on both Heller and McDonald - already works very closely with gun-rights organizations in California. He used to live here, and is well aware of the problems we face. Specifically, he works very closely with CGF - he's the lead attorney on Richards and Peña. Also, we coordinate broader national strategy with him - for example, if we know he's bringing a big precedent-setting case in a more friendly jurisdiction, we may hold off bringing a similar case here. When Are We Going To Challenge The California Roster of Handguns? We already have. The case is Peña v. Cid: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid In this case we're challenging four plaintiffs' inability to purchase handguns they should be able to under Heller. This case was stayed pending an outcome in the Nordyke case. Nordyke has been sent back to the District Court. Expect us to try to get the stay lifted, soon. When Are We Going To Get CCW? Right now CGF has a case challenging some sheriffs' issuance policies, called Richards v. Prieto: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...s_v._McGinness This is challenging Yolo County. We're challenging in this county because we think we have a better chance of prevailing there (as opposed to a more urban area). Once we win this cases, we intend to take the precedents we win there back to the bigger cities with more cases. This case was formerly titled Sykes v. McGinness. McGinness was (at the time) Sheriff of Sacramento county. However, in November, Sacramento County announced their policy was to issue licenses for a "good cause" of "self defense," so we removed them from the lawsuit, and are continuing against Yolo county. There is a sister case to this, challenging a similar law in Washington, D.C., also led by Alan Gura, called Palmer v. District of Columbia: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...ct_of_Columbia There is a similar case to this one in San Diego, known as Peruta v. County of San Diego: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...y_of_San_Diego It is likewise attempting to define "self defense" as "good cause". Peruta has failed to win a motion for summary judgement, but is continuing. What Happened to The Mail Order Ammunition Law (AB 962)? On July 28, 2010 CGF filed OOIDA v. Lindley to try to overturn this law: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...IDA_v._Lindley Our case was set aside because it was not yet "ripe" - it hadn't gone into effect. Thankfully, the CRPA and NRA case, Parker v. California: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in..._v._California was successful, and AB962 has been overturned! When Are We Going To Challenge The Waiting Period and/or One Handgun / Month? We're optimistic on this one. Once we win "strict scrutiny" or even "intermediate scrutiny", we should be able to say "there's no compelling reason for this", and that case should be a winner. We'll have to wait for the scrutiny win, though (which could come from any number of current cases). Given that this case depends on a lot of other cases to win cleanly, we don't know exactly when we'll file it. When Are We Going To Go For Loaded Open Carry? CGF strongly supports the concept of Loaded Open Carry. Mr. Gura's recent efforts in North Carolina should clearly establish the precedent that we have a right to bear, and do so in a jurisdiction that will be a lot friendlier to us than challenging here. Also, the outcome of Richards v. Preito (and other cases) may have some impact on this, as well as whether or not the legislature bans Unloaded Open Carry. There are too many moving pieces in the predecessor cases to predict exactly when we'll file this, but know we're thinking about it, and keeping our eyes peeled for an opportunity. When Are We Going To Challenge The Assault Weapons Ban? This also requires a scrutiny finding that's an indeterminate amount of time in the future. Rest assured we really want to bring this case - we just want to make sure we win it when we do. When Are We Going To Challenge the .50 Caliber Ban? This can't stand up to strict scrutiny, especially given that .510 DTC is legal. This also depends on a lot of previous cases to win, however. When Are We Going To Challenge on Large Capacity Magazines? This is an interesting case, because magazines aren't firearms. This may have to wait on some more complex precedent, or take a more circular route. Again, we're very interested in doing this, we've brainstormed a number of ways to approach it, but we're not quite ready to do it, yet. The really good news here is that we have at least three possible approaches I'm aware of, and none of them preclude the others, so we can just keep swinging until we get it. Also, given everything else we've figured out how to open up in the past few years, it does seem like one of the less restrictive laws we're facing, right now. When Am I Going To Be Able To Purchase A Gun Out of California? Right now this is illegal under Federal law, but there seems to be no intelligent basis behind it. Mr. Gura has been working a case, Hodgkins v. Holder for a while on this, but has been stalled out through jurisdictional issues. Recently SAF has filed a new case on this matter, Lane v. D.C., which notes that there is currently no gun store in D.C., and that consequently it's not legal under Federal law to purchase a firearm there. When Am I Going To Be Able To Buy a Machine Guns? Probably not any time soon, and definitely not through legal challenges. Our feeling at this moment is that these are losers in the court system. Maybe after we have enough precedents under our belt, we'll think we have a shot at it, but right now the most effective things you can do to get a legal machine gun are to lobby Congress to overturn NFA, or move to a state that will let you get an NFA tax stamp. What About Other NFA Weapons? We think there's no rational basis for allowing (say) AR pistols but not short-barreled ARs. Our intent is to build up some better precedent before tackling this, but we might be forced to move faster than we'd like, if someone gets arrested with one and needs our help. What About Supressors? This falls under the same category as machine guns, right now. When Will I Be Able To Apply For a Carry License In Other States if I'm a California Resident? Some states ban open carry, but then do not allow out-of-state residents to apply for carry licenses. Gray Peterson is challenging this in Colorado in Peterson v. LaCabe: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...rson_v._LaCabe What About Protecting Arms Other Than Guns? A case in New York, Maloney v. Rice was released from stay after McDonald. It covers New York's blanket ban on the ownership of nunchaku. It's hard to say how this case will fare, but it's quite possible to be optimistic about it. If he wins it, it should help us a lot in those sorts of challenges - but, I'll note, non-gun challenges are not the core mission of the Calguns Foundation. What Are Other Organizations Up To? Obviously, I can't speak for them. I know various other people are mounting various other challenges, so it's possible that you'll see some of these addressed by others before we have time to fight them, ourselves. To the extent that happens, we'll be happy to lend them our knowledge and perspective - I think I speak for everyone at CGF when I say that we don't care who gets the credit, we just want our rights. I'd also like to explicitly note that many other groups out there, including, but not limited to the NRA, the CRPA and SAF are doing great work. Many of these organizations we work with, directly, and co-fund cases. This sort of parallelization allows all of us, as a movement, to do more, faster.
__________________
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 Last edited by the_quark; 05-12-2011 at 11:15 PM.. Reason: September 1 Update |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think in general that this was our basic strategy ("break it into pieces and win each piece decisively") has been pretty obvious to people with a lot of legal experience for a while. But I was afraid to people who don't spend a lot of time in court, our decisions to go after "this law versus that law" would seem arbitrary, and was hoping I could use this to get across the idea that there actually is a plan, even if we can't tell you every single detail, yet. Thanks for the kind words from everyone, it was my pleasure to put it together.
__________________
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 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1) We have to because someone is getting wrongfully prosecuted. We at CGF always remember that our mission is to "get the charges dismissed", first, "make law" second. Our core mission is to keep law abiding Californians out of jail, and if we're forced to go after something in a sub-optimal order to save someone's skin, we will. 2) As you say above, because it might set something else up. We might have a real clear shot at a precedent through one of these, and even though it doesn't matter, if we can easily get a court to agree that we have a right to do X, we might be able to use that later. 3) It might just be easy and fun. Especially if the law is just egregious, and as we get more precedent, you might see us knock over some simple stuff simply because we can.
__________________
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 |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Also, in reply to everyone who asked: Feel free to republish elsewhere, but I'd appreciate it if you'd include a link back to the original, as I plan to keep it updated (and already have a new question I need to add).
__________________
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 |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Just cleaned up the thread - this would be better used for the info. Good suggestion over in Announcements.
But 90% was appropriate kudos to Brett!
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 07-03-2010 at 1:30 PM.. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I am no lawyer. So could someone explain to me why overturning the Assault Weapons Ban would need strict scrutiny?
It is no more logical than the Safe Handgun Certificate, and under intermediate scrutiny, I do not see any "compelling interest" in banning them. As the NRA and every other gun rights group has been saying since 1993, "They are functionally no different than non-banned guns." |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
EDIT: I updated the above to not say we need "strict" scrutiny.
__________________
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 |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
One questions comes to mind with Heller is what can now stop someone who is currently prohibited from owning firearms (felon, mentally unstable, drug addict, etc) from having a firearm in his/her home? Say an Officer comes to your house and finds an unloaded firearm, it seems Heller might make a valid argument - unless it somehow falls under the same example you gave of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room. Or would this now have to work its way through the courts and be challenged? The reason I said unloaded firearm is that I don't see in the Constitution that ammo is protected, just the firearm. So the government could say; "Sure, you can have a gun, just no ammo."
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Another involving Peña v Cid say it comes out that "the safe handgun list" is unconstitutional and we are allowed to own and posses any handgun we wish. There would be a problem with this involving large capacity magazines, seeing as how some pistols have a standard 10+ magazine. Mostly with these case its gonna just be a domino effect a win here is gonna affect the next case after it and so on and so on.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The can of worms here is that if you say restricted persons the right to keep and bear arms, what other rights that they forfeited via their poor choice of actions (or bad luck, because let's face it there are a few people who do get nailed and are innocent) do they get back? Can they vote (and likely contribute to the weakening of laws that landed them in jail in the first place), can a doctor convicted of criminal negligence resulting in death be allowed to practice again, can a child molester be allowed to work unsupervised in a daycare facility? Don't get me wrong - I believe everybody has the right to keep and bear arms for self defense but I think that the "right" way to approach the restoration of these rights has to be approached very carefully lest the law of unintended consequences bite us. If people prohibited from owning do get that right back, I would also like to see stringent rules (backed by rigorous enforcement) that would ensure that said persons wouldn't dare trying to use those weapons for extralegal purposes. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Updated to September 1. Nothing major, but:
Updated introduction and date Correct Holmes quote about fire and theaters Updated Peña status (on hold) Updated Sykes status (moving soon) Mentioned OOIDA v. Lindley (not yet moving) Added Supressors as a separate section Mentioned Peruta v. San Diego County (CCW case) Mentioned Peterson v. LaCabe (Out of state CCW application) Many thanks to (in no particular order) Gray Peterson, santacruzstefan, HunterJim, JFC, harbinger007 and anyone else I may have missed for sending in case suggestions and corrections.
__________________
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 |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So, it would be possible to kill the roster and still not have high capacity magazines, or have high capacity magazines and still have the roster. Obviously, we want to kill the roster and have high-capacity magazines, but they're separate issues.
__________________
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
First of all, thanks to The Quark for all the great info. I see help in running down a rumor that I believe was previously addressed on this site. It deals with the California ban on interstate purchases of ammo, due to go into effect next year. I read somewhere that if a CA resident holds both a federal C&R FFL and a CA Certificate of Eligibility issued by the CA DOJ, that person is exempt from the mail order ban, whether or not the stupid law is constitutional. I hold both of those items and would like to either confirm or put this rumor to rest. Any help would be appreciated.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Jack Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA? No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Good Lord! A statutory cite, no less! Thanks so much. Now the trick will be getting the ammo vendors to understand that it's O.K. to ship to me. I'm thinking about trying to get the CA DOJ to issue me a letter to the same effect. By this I mean that I will write to them and ask them to confirm in writing that I am exempt from the ban. I will report my experience. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Calguns Commandos
I think OSS actually stands for Office of Strategic Services. As in, the forerunner of the CIA. As in, a team of ninja commandos who sneak in and effortlessly kill the enemy by snapping their necks with a single savage twist.
You know, like what Calguns is doing to stupid laws right now. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Much thanks for the updates and elucidation. Small steps, many battles comprize the war. Remember the Quark, thanks to Gillory's 10 yr fight and Peterson. Members read all this stuff and apply yearly for CCW even if rebuked. It makes ongoing cases in your county look stronger. When they say "you will not get $ back if we deny you and the denial will be on your Dept of Justice record". They do not want a record of you even being there. We need a record of your denial. You have no rights if you don't vote. Your application is your vote. I've been applying for 15 yrs and now LAP is paying Michele and ***. to defend me. Molon Labe Marcus.
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Re.: AB 962
I heard (from an ammo retailer) that this law cannot go into effect (Feb. 1, 2011) as long as there is litigation pending against it, is this true? Thxs
__________________
Though defensive violence will always be “a sad necessity” in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men. - St. Augustine |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'll watch for updates.
__________________
Though defensive violence will always be “a sad necessity” in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men. - St. Augustine |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Great thread, keep up the hard work!
__________________
"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" (If you seek peace, prepare for war) "9MM - Because it won't matter when I put two in your chest and one in your head" "If you want to make sure you hit the target, start shooting and whatever you hit call it the target." =P |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
A must read thread!
Thanks Quark, This thread is the most concise summary of various gun rights actions I have read. It makes it easy for us who don't do lawerspeak to understand where we're going and just enough about overall gun rights strategy (hopefully without tipping our hand) to keep the faith. Keep up the good work guys. And for you guys who are putting off making a calguns donation - just do it .
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for all the kind words.
Couple of minor updates - I clarified Loaded Open Carry a bit, and noted under CCW that Sacramento is essentially shall-issue at this point.
__________________
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 |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Great summary. I have a suggestion, please put "Assault Weapons" in quotes, as it's a made-up term without any actual basis in firearms terminology or history. "Assault Weapons" are an artifact of the gun prohibitionists' language and the first thing to do in court might be to show that "Assault Weapons" are no different in fact than any other rifle or handgun.
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
I think that's state law and sheriffs have no choice.
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Stall-issue in Sacramento's case is having a panel with not enough members to be able to function.
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Funny, the Anti's have a lot in common with Hitler, Rule through fear, adopting his language, adopting his ideologies on whether the public has a right to keep and bear arms, since the public is second class compared to the rulers, the Facists have no problem taking guns away from their subjects... I don't think it would be a stretch to call the Brady's Facists as well (in a factual sense of the word). Last edited by nrakid88; 09-30-2010 at 11:27 AM.. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You say potayto, I say potahto But in this case, he said "assault weapon" and you said "assault rifle".
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Gene Hoffman's rumors are better than most people's confirmed facts.
__________________
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 |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
When am I going to see Dragunov OLLs for sale?? |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|