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 04-19-2010, 1:14 PM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 8,117
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Very enlightening. Thanks Can'thavenuthinggood.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-19-2010, 3:56 PM
ponderosa's Avatar
ponderosa ponderosa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Placer Co
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm with Bill (and Brown) on this one.

Our choices suck - that is why they're politicians.

I am tired of crappy gun laws getting added, and have some respect for the intellect behind CGN and CGF and it's crew for all they have done and are doing for our gun rights over the years.

Our economy isn't going to be reliant on our governor to "save" us either, there are more variables than that at play.

So I'm am planning on voting for Brown, as the ebay lady isn't doing it for me and neither has the terminator...

And thank you Calguns and CGF for all you have and are doing, it is greatly appreciated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-20-2010, 12:54 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,591
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaric View Post
Statism is not a defining characteristic of the left. It can belong to either the left or the right. Take the concepts of "corporatism", "ultranationalism", or "fascism". All were used interchangeably to describe countries like fascist Italy, all were extremely "right wing" and all statist. Like it or not, there are those on the left who value and love freedom. They just tend to love freedoms that tick off conservatives, like reproductive rights, the right to get high, and the right to pick up a hooker without getting hassled by the man, man.
No, that is completely wrong. Statism is an entirely leftist concept. Nationalism, corporatism, and fascism are or are elements of leftist ideologies. It is quite evident from their nature. Corporatism is like syndicalism except based upon corporations and not unions. Nationalism is a characteristic of leftism which arose out of the French Revolution (which was the first major leftist revolution and one of the "great" ones); it tends to compete with internationalism. National Socialism (which dates back to the 1890s), for example, was nationalistic and one of the major differences from its competitor, international socialism, was its rejection of internationalism. Fascism, like National Socialism, is ultimately derived from the older international socialism, which is not surprising given that its creator, Mussolini, was originally a socialist; it is however different enough to be considered seperate. It is simply amazing how the Left has been able to misuse words and definitions to the point where people think that what is Left is Right, i.e. that something is the opposite of what it actually is. Seems to happen in many areas, too including constitutional law.

Also, leftism is generally opposed to freedom, especially in any broad sense. Some leftist ideologies, however, espouse freedom below the belt or even full-blown libertinism, while rejecting all other freedom. Those things by themselves do no demonstrate any real love for liberty. A rightist that supports those things being legal (even if morally opposed to them) generally will support very broad amounts of freedom. Ultimately, the driving idea behind leftism is equality; in order to achieve equality (or at least move heavily in that direction; true equality is impossible), there cannot be freedom in any real sense. Things like the couple of freedoms leftists might support tend not to in most cases have any impact on equality one way or another. Freedom sharply conflicts with any plans or designs to impose equality.

Quote:
Rightists would use the concept of freedom to protect gun rights, property rights and the made up family values right.

Leftists would use the concept of freedom to protect their herb from the pigs. After that, they forgot what else they wanted. Oh yeah, something about loving the earth, yeah.
Rightists tend to support a broad amount of freedom. It is one of the defining characteristics of the Right. When the question is asked, "Should we have liberty or equality?", the Right chooses liberty. Where there tends to be debate is on matters of virtue, but there is debate, not any sort of universal consensus against freedom in areas deemed to be "social" in modern political parlance. Even among those on the Right supportive of some restrictions in areas regarding morality and virtue, the amount of liberty supported is far broader than in any leftist ideology. Ultimately, most proponents of such laws on the Right support them for individualist reasons, not statist or collectivist ones. Pretty much all rightists are mostly or entirely individualistic in their outlook and all are opposed to statism. These ideas are some of the basic criteria used to define placement on the standard political spectrum.

Quote:
But the point is, each "side" in this dystopian bipolar myopiaplex would use the government to inflict grievous harm on the others' most cherished rights. Both sides play the victim, while simultaneously letting loose with a barrage of legislative cannonade on their opponents as soon as they become empowered to do so (the so-called culture war). There are things both sides agree on. They both love the Patriot Act for example. In other words, they both love statism. It's like a mad race to see who can implement their grand plan for the subjugation of Americans first and crown their totalitarian emperor first. Right now the Dems are winning, but that should not mean we must support the Reps.
You are incorrect. Both sides of the spectrum don't like the Patriot Act or statism. The right is mostly opposed to laws like the Patriot Act. You can try to bring up neocons if you like, but ultimately their ideology is a derivative of that which dominates the Democratic Party, which is by no means a rightist one. What you seem to be referring to is really partisanship and vulgar politics, not the differences or likenesses between political ideologies and philosophies. The thing is, I was never talking about things from a partisan perspective. I am a staunch opponent of partisanship; I just recognize political parties as a necessary evil and also one of the only ways to really collectively promote commonly shared ideas. I also don't unwaveringly support Republicans (and I have voted against Republicans a number of times, although I have never voted for a Democrat).

Quote:
So, since our apparent choices are for the statist left wing party that wants to let illegals in, run up taxes and take away our guns.... Or, the statist right wing party that loves any freedom enumerated in the New Testament or prophesied by a corporate lobbyist, I think I'll choose option #3. I will define my own political epistemology and call it whatever I want. Like liberal libertarianism.
Thing is, your conclusions are based upon false premises. You are also making blanket generalizations of the two parties. For example, in the GOP, individual members, candidates, etc. can be anything from moderate left (like neocons or even more common modern liberals) to far right (like hardcore libertarians).

One mistake I also think you are making is that you are equating parties with ideologies. A party, when it comes down to it, is just a name. Anyone with any belief can join a party in the U.S. I also think you have some major misconceptions of what is left and what is right.

Quote:
Anyone know where to find a 3 or 4 axis political compass? I think Bigstick is right about a 2 axis compass being insufficient.
None exists that I know of. But even 3 or 4 axes would be insufficient. You would need dozens of axes. This would be a nightmare to set up and use. This is ultimately why the much simpler left-right single-axis model is the most appropriate.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-20-2010, 1:05 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,591
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
I'm writing quickly, on way to gunshow...

The reasons gunowners don't have more strength is perfectly exhibited by many ideologues this thread.

Pet owners, gays, union types, etc. all seem to vote their primary cause first.

Yet gun owners bring a pack of other ideology with their vote and wonder why their gunrights get diluted.

Many of the key votes, BTW, for antigun laws in CA (esp Roberti-Roos etc) were brought by various Republican POSes.

For the first time in a long time, we are gonna have a tight race (Brown's numbers/voter registration/natural advantage of Dem vote in CA vs. Meg's wildly distributed ad money) where gunnies can be a key swing vote.

And politicians understand risk vs. reward and reward those who helped them in situations like this.

It politically behooves us to reward Brown for his significant pro-gun acts.

We have some opportunity to show some muscle and cause "political displancement due to gunnies".

Neither JB nor Meg Whitman (eliminating Poizner, he's toast - all his pro staff has left, usu for Whitman campaign) will be able to do much for CA. That's up to legislature. Meg is nuts if she thinks she can run CA "like a business" - Arnie tried that. I do have significant fears Meg will sign gun bills "for the children". I have fair confidence JB will NOT sign bad gun bills, and can use the budget and his overall natural cheapskateness as cover.

It's amazing that people on a gun board like this worry about things other than guns.

It's pretty f**king hard to roll back a bad gun bill - and even when possible it takes time & money. Why make our lives harder?


[BTW: Just because I'm a CGF board member does not mean I surrender my right to free speech as an individual. CGF in fact is suing DOJ/AG on various matters as part of its march forward.

But do remember the line in the Godfather: "Nothing personal, it's just business."]
I find it interesting that you criticize others for viewing one thing as being of primary importance and voting that way for being ideologues, when you yourself are engaged in the exact same behaviour, the object of it simply being different. If those people are ideologues, then so are you. If you are not, then they cannot be based upon that criteria either. You can't have it both ways. To insist upon such a double standard is ultimately hypocritical.

You find it amazing that there are those of us who worry about anything other than guns. I find it amazing that you are so singularly-minded when it comes to political issues (and criticize others for being the same as yourself). Guns, or anything related, by themselves are empty of any sort of goal or norm; they cannot be an end in and of themselves. They are a part of the broader picture. To elevate them to an ultimate end is to create an ideology based around guns and to make one's self nothing other than an ideologue. You are wrenching guns out of the context of the whole.

While there are certainly some of us who have other things we consider of primary importance, many of us also look at the whole and the wide array of principles, policies, issues, etc. which comprise it. This is ultimately a good thing. It makes no sense to not consider the whole and all that comprises it (and yes, guns are an important part of one of its main components, liberty). It is only unfortunate that the majority of the electorate, to include by your own admission yourself, does not take everything into consideration when choosing who to vote for.

Ultimately, if our State is run completely into the ground, unemployment and debt are sky-high, we have lost liberty in multiple key areas, and are taxed half to death, minor victories on gun rights will be among the least of our worries, and we have to be realistic here, Brown will not help us gain major victories, even if he is in earnest when it comes to his alleged position on gun rights. And of course, if he is not in earnest, then we will certainly suffer for it.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-20-2010, 1:11 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,591
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
Fascism has as much in common with the far left as it does with the far right. Anybody who's passed Poli Sci 101 knows about that much. The rest - like your rant - is pure ideology.
It has almost nothing in common with the far right. The fundamentals of fascist ideology are completely opposed to those of any right-wing ideology. They (fascists) are very much far to the left, especially given their positions on the issues, their fundamentals, and their origins. To state this is not to spout off a blinding ideology as you allege, but rather it is to simply state the facts. To this day I have never seen anyone who claims that fascism is right-wing provide a shred of credible evidence to demonstrate this.

And in my Poli Sci 101 class fascism was taught to be a far-left ideology. In most Poli Sci classes of that sort I have heard of from my friends who have taken them at various institutions, it seems that serious or detailed topics are hardly discussed. You wouldn't know much of anything about fascism from them. I don't think this claim of yours really holds any water.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-20-2010, 1:35 AM
rmasold's Avatar
rmasold rmasold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 1,088
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Its all bad
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-20-2010, 2:00 AM
Wild Squid Wild Squid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 503
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I've thought about why JB would be good for 2A too, when did he say he was going to try to change the CA assault weapon ban, make the state shall issue CCW, etc? Is he really pro gun? If he is he needs to come out and state it over and over and over so I believe him. IF he doesn't, chances are that he's just lying to all of us and as soon as he's elected it's back to taking more guns away from us.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-20-2010, 8:13 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
as soon as he's elected it's back to taking more guns away from us.
He's elected now, and he has used his power to downgrade and emasculate the firearms department of the DoJ, get rid of Iggie (now pounding the beat 'cos no-one wants him for anything important) effectively demote and muzzle the remaining memebers such as Alison and overrule the members of that department by sending amica briefs they don't agree with to the Supremes.

Grief man, what does he have to do to convince you?
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-20-2010, 8:15 AM
ponderosa's Avatar
ponderosa ponderosa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Placer Co
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Squid View Post
I've thought about why JB would be good for 2A too, when did he say he was going to try to change the CA assault weapon ban, make the state shall issue CCW, etc? Is he really pro gun? If he is he needs to come out and state it over and over and over so I believe him. IF he doesn't, chances are that he's just lying to all of us and as soon as he's elected it's back to taking more guns away from us.
So you vote for Meg, who is very clearly anti-2a, or your write in a candidate (flushing sound)?

It is pathetic that our system is the way it is, I'll grant you that.

I will be voting for Brown.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 04-20-2010, 8:20 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes, the choice is JB, whose recent behavior is friendly to us, and risk he might change his mind, or you vote for Meg and hope and pray that she will change her mind.

As there is no evidence that the latter is likely, anf the former is just a few people being cynical and pessimistic, what's the argument about?
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 04-20-2010, 8:28 AM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 9,083
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Yes, the choice is JB, whose recent behavior is friendly to us, and risk he might change his mind, or you vote for Meg and hope and pray that she will change her mind.

As there is no evidence that the latter is likely, anf the former is just a few people being cynical and pessimistic, what's the argument about?
That's very well put.

I think the argument exists mostly because Brown is a registered Democrat, and some people still can't get over that.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 04-20-2010, 8:30 AM
Skidmark's Avatar
Skidmark Skidmark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Semi-Banned
Posts: 1,777
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
He's elected now, and he has used his power to downgrade and emasculate the firearms department of the DoJ, get rid of Iggie (now pounding the beat 'cos no-one wants him for anything important) effectively demote and muzzle the remaining members such as Alison and overrule the members of that department by sending amica briefs they don't agree with to the Supremes.

Grief man, what does he have to do to convince you?
That about sums it up. Brown, in his current elected position, has shown himself to be the best advocate for 2A and RKBA of any serious candidate in the Governor's race. I may not like the mess he left in Oakland, but that's not any reason to withhold my support for him now.
__________________
Making guns illegal is as stupid as making drugs or prostitution illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 04-20-2010, 8:44 AM
Mr. Beretta Mr. Beretta is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,470
iTrader: 216 / 100%
Default

Brown is a nut! But at least I know he's a nut & I know his record / history.

Whitman is a ??? She doesn't even have the guts for public debate! Plus I got a problem with a wannabe politician who has spent almost 60 million dollars of her own money to get elected!

And as others have said, Brown has shown more pro RKBA than Whitman.

I've never voted for a Democrat in my life but I unless I hear / read something different before November, I think I'm going hold my nose and pull the lever for JB.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 04-20-2010, 12:40 PM
M1A Rifleman's Avatar
M1A Rifleman M1A Rifleman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,570
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

What has Brown done for guns in his career, please fill-in the list:

1) Sent an brief in favor of the 2nd amendment against the states,
2) ? Said he liked guns?, Said he owned guns? , Said he shoots?

Hmm, not sure I heard him say he is for your guns, or for you owning guns. I doubt he hot on UOC let along shall issue. Just a thought.

The Republicans have their own problems, but I not yet convinced that Brown is sooo pro-gun.
__________________
The only thing that is worse than an idiot, is someone who argues with one.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 04-20-2010, 12:50 PM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,155
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
I think the argument exists mostly because Brown is a registered Democrat, and some people still can't get over that.
WRONG!!!!

Brown is an überleft-wing, certifiable nut-job, with a track record that proves just that.

So recently, he has shown some signs that he is not as anti-2A as some of the other candidates. Fine.

If that's enough for you to give him your vote, that's great. If not, that's up to you.

This kind of decision is personal, and is something that needs to be weighed by each person.

But let's call it what it is, not just "he is a Democrat".
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor

Last edited by Legasat; 04-20-2010 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 04-20-2010, 12:55 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 9,083
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legasat View Post
WRONG!!!!

Brown is an überleft-wing, certifiable nut-job, with a track record that proves just that.

So recently, he has shown some signs that he is not as anti-2A as some of the other candidates. Fine.

If that's enough for you to give him your vote, that's great. If not, that's up to you.

This kind of decision is personal, and is something that needs to be weighed by each person.

But let's call it what it is, not just "he is a Democrat".
You are oversimplying the guy and his stance. Jerry Brown just cannot be boxed into a neat little labeled drawer like you're doing. Your approach is just as retarded as those who were calling George W. Bush a fascist.

But hey, vote for whomever RINO you feel most comfortable with, and enjoy seeing them sign anti-gun bills.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 04-20-2010, 12:58 PM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,155
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
You are oversimplying the guy and his stance. Jerry Brown just cannot be boxed into a neat little labeled drawer like you're doing. Your approach is just as retarded as those who were calling George W. Bush a fascist.
Umm, I remember Jerry's first time around. And maybe I am being a little unfair to him, after all, I have never met him.

My statement is no more harsh or unfounded than yours was. We cannot got over that fact that he is registered Democrat? And THAT is why we cannot vote for him? How stupid and narrow minded is that?
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor

Last edited by Legasat; 04-20-2010 at 1:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 04-20-2010, 1:07 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 9,083
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legasat View Post
Umm, I remember Jerry's first time around. And maybe I am being a little unfair to him, after all, I have never met him.

My statement is no more harsh or unfounded than yours was. We cannot got over that fact that he is registered Democrat? And THAT is why we cannot vote for him? How stupid and narrow minded is that?
I never said that all those who opposed him couldn't get over the fact that he's a Dem. You're oversimplifying as well. Re-read my posts.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-20-2010, 1:13 PM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,155
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c
I think the argument exists mostly because Brown is a registered Democrat, and some people still can't get over that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
I never said that all those who opposed him couldn't get over the fact that he's a Dem. You're oversimplifying as well. Re-read my posts.
OK...
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 04-20-2010, 3:52 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman View Post
What has Brown done for guns in his career, please fill-in the list:

1) Sent an brief in favor of the 2nd amendment against the states,
2) ? Said he liked guns?, Said he owned guns? , Said he shoots?

Hmm, not sure I heard him say he is for your guns, or for you owning guns. I doubt he hot on UOC let along shall issue. Just a thought.

The Republicans have their own problems, but I not yet convinced that Brown is sooo pro-gun.
How many times does it have to be posted that Brown has done a lot more than send a brief?

He downgraded the firearms bureau to a department. He got rid of Iggie. He gagged Allison. The department has been very quiet while he has been in control. No attempts at underground regulations, no hassling of legal firearm owners. I've probably forgotten a few things too.

This information has been posted over and over, by me and (better) by Bill and by others.

I'm amazed that you, with the number of posts you make, haven't read any of these.
Quote:

I doubt he hot on UOC let along shall issue
Don't know about Jerry, but my priorities wouldn't be that way around.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 04-20-2010, 6:11 PM
Skidmark's Avatar
Skidmark Skidmark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Semi-Banned
Posts: 1,777
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legasat View Post
Brown is an überleft-wing, certifiable nut-job, with a track record that proves just that.
Certifiable? Really? Who has "certified" him?

There are nutjobs a-plenty in this state, but Jerry Brown is not one of them.
__________________
Making guns illegal is as stupid as making drugs or prostitution illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-20-2010, 6:33 PM
FS00008's Avatar
FS00008 FS00008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Purcellville, Virginia
Posts: 1,983
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pvt. Cowboy View Post
Picture is real and genuine.

Maybe you'd be convinced if some People's Temple cult survivors testimonies established the relationship between Jerry Brown and Jim Jones?

Seductive Poison: A Jonestown Survivor's Story of Life and Death in the Peoples Temple

That photo has been proven to be a fake.
__________________
"No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer."
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-20-2010, 7:20 PM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,155
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidmark View Post
Certifiable? Really? Who has "certified" him?
I never said he has been certified, just certifiable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidmark View Post
There are nutjobs a-plenty in this state, but Jerry Brown is not one of them.
I guess that is where you and I will have to disagree.


I guess my only point is, so many of you seem to be expecting so much. I am expecting nothing but more heartache from which ever one of them gets elected.
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-20-2010, 7:31 PM
KylaGWolf's Avatar
KylaGWolf KylaGWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,699
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warbird View Post
They should use a disclaimer stating it is their personal opinions being expressed and are not to be construed with their positions. Maybe something that automatically pops up when they join in the "conversation". If they are speaking on behalf of the position then turn the disclaimer off.
They already do so.
__________________
"I declare to you that women must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand." Susan B. Anthony
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-20-2010, 8:12 PM
Can'thavenuthingood's Avatar
Can'thavenuthingood Can'thavenuthingood is offline
C3 Leader
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lemoore
Posts: 5,630
iTrader: 138 / 100%
Default

So after reading this article, this paragraph specifically roused my curiosity,

......A little known fact to most voters is that machine guns were legal in California up until 1975. Technically, they still are legal but one needs a permit from the California Attorney General to possess one in the state and Jerry Brown, as California's Attorney General, hasn't exactly handed out the permits as if they were candy. Contrast this with the states bordering California; Oregon, Nevada and Arizona were they are relatively easy to obtain. The hardest part about buying one in our neighboring states is coming up with the cash. The least expensive machine pistols (e.g., M11/Mac-10) cost close to $5,000 and one can look to spend $20,000 and more for a period Thompson Sub-Machine gun.

I began to wonder about how I might go about to get one for myself or Calguns.

I went to the California Attorney Generals site,
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12200.php

Found this pertaining to machine guns;
ARTICLE 3. PERMITS

  • 12230. The Department of Justice may issue permits for the possession, manufacture, and transportation or possession, manufacture, or transportation of machineguns, upon a satisfactory showing that good cause exists for the issuance thereof to the applicant for the permit, but no permit shall be issued to a person who is under 18 years of age.
12231. Applications for permits shall be filed in writing, signed by the applicant if an individual, or by a member or officer qualified to sign if the applicant is a firm or corporation, and shall state the name, business in which engaged, business address and a full description of the use to which the firearms are to be put.
Applications and permits shall be uniform throughout the state on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice. Each applicant for a permit shall pay at the time of filing his or her application a fee determined by the Department of Justice not to exceed the application processing costs of the Department of Justice.
A permit granted pursuant to this article may be renewed one year from the date of issuance, and annually thereafter, upon the filing of a renewal application and the payment of a permit renewal fee not to exceed the application processing costs of the Department of Justice.
After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse the department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living adjustments for the department's budget.

12232. Every person, firm or corporation to whom a permit is issued shall keep it on his person or at the place where the firearms are kept. The permit shall be open to inspection by any peace officer or any other person designated by the authority issuing the permit.

12233. Permits issued in accordance with this chapter may be revoked by the issuing authority at any time when it appears that the need for the firearms has ceased or that the holder of the permit has used the firearms for purposes other than those allowed by the permit or that the holder of the permit has not exercised great care in retaining custody of any weapons possessed under the permit.

12234. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Justice shall, for every person, firm, or corporation to whom a permit is issued pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventory of machine guns. (b) A person, firm, or corporation with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by the department.

Has Jerry Brown issued any such permits?
Has he revoked any such permits?

Has anyone applied?

As I understand this, it is a may issue type of permit with good cause. I think Calguns has a good cause as in educating the public about the California gun laws. We have a proven track record via the gun show booths success.

Several Police Departments utilize our literature for training their Police Officers.

I'd think it would also be show of good faith in the California gun owners by the Attorney General.

Vick
__________________


"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more." (George Patton)

Calguns T-shirts, hats and stickers

CALGUNS.NET logo stickers and patches (3 inch) are here

Picnic Time
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-20-2010, 9:40 PM
PEBKAC's Avatar
PEBKAC PEBKAC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,032
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
No, that is completely wrong. Statism is an entirely leftist concept. Nationalism, corporatism, and fascism are or are elements of leftist ideologies. It is quite evident from their nature. Corporatism is like syndicalism except based upon corporations and not unions. Nationalism is a characteristic of leftism which arose out of the French Revolution (which was the first major leftist revolution and one of the "great" ones); it tends to compete with internationalism. National Socialism (which dates back to the 1890s), for example, was nationalistic and one of the major differences from its competitor, international socialism, was its rejection of internationalism. Fascism, like National Socialism, is ultimately derived from the older international socialism, which is not surprising given that its creator, Mussolini, was originally a socialist; it is however different enough to be considered seperate. It is simply amazing how the Left has been able to misuse words and definitions to the point where people think that what is Left is Right, i.e. that something is the opposite of what it actually is. Seems to happen in many areas, too including constitutional law.

Also, leftism is generally opposed to freedom, especially in any broad sense. Some leftist ideologies, however, espouse freedom below the belt or even full-blown libertinism, while rejecting all other freedom. Those things by themselves do no demonstrate any real love for liberty. A rightist that supports those things being legal (even if morally opposed to them) generally will support very broad amounts of freedom. Ultimately, the driving idea behind leftism is equality; in order to achieve equality (or at least move heavily in that direction; true equality is impossible), there cannot be freedom in any real sense. Things like the couple of freedoms leftists might support tend not to in most cases have any impact on equality one way or another. Freedom sharply conflicts with any plans or designs to impose equality.



Rightists tend to support a broad amount of freedom. It is one of the defining characteristics of the Right. When the question is asked, "Should we have liberty or equality?", the Right chooses liberty. Where there tends to be debate is on matters of virtue, but there is debate, not any sort of universal consensus against freedom in areas deemed to be "social" in modern political parlance. Even among those on the Right supportive of some restrictions in areas regarding morality and virtue, the amount of liberty supported is far broader than in any leftist ideology. Ultimately, most proponents of such laws on the Right support them for individualist reasons, not statist or collectivist ones. Pretty much all rightists are mostly or entirely individualistic in their outlook and all are opposed to statism. These ideas are some of the basic criteria used to define placement on the standard political spectrum.
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...in that vein can you recommend some books or scholarly articles that elaborate further on these topics? Seriously, have time to blow and could use some reading material...
__________________

Love and Peace through superior firepower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
Plus, we can check out each other's hardware. Who says we can't find common ground?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
You need to grow a full beard and move out into the woods before you can be a full fledged member of the surplus rifle long range shooting community.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-20-2010, 11:03 PM
heyjak's Avatar
heyjak heyjak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento Area (East Roseville) CA
Posts: 218
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Angry Jerry?

OK. Here are the choices: Meg the B*tch who wants to be Queen (Governor) so bad she'll spend $Millions to get the "throne". Or Poizner (Poisoner) the liar who flip-flops on every issue to get elected? I personally will swallow real hard and vote for Jerry, who at least, is honest about his thoughts and intentions. This is not what I really want, but I see no real HONEST alternative.
__________________
CGF Contributor
NRA Endowment Member
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-20-2010, 11:19 PM
Alaric's Avatar
Alaric Alaric is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midcoast Maine
Posts: 3,215
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was hoping to just let this thread die the death it so richly deserved, but respond, I must.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
No, that is completely wrong. Statism is an entirely leftist concept. Nationalism, corporatism, and fascism are or are elements of leftist ideologies.
Just for backgrounds' sake, since you're dismissing my assertions wholesale, what's your background? Did you spend years studying government and political science in an academic setting or is this just one of your many internet hobbies? I have actually been a scholar of political philosophy and spent far too much time that I will never get back on this subject (much to my dismay). All I'm asking for is a little respect before you go and claim the sky is really pink and not blue at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
Also, leftism is generally opposed to freedom, especially in any broad sense. Some leftist ideologies, however, espouse freedom below the belt or even full-blown libertinism, while rejecting all other freedom. Those things by themselves do no demonstrate any real love for liberty. A rightist that supports those things being legal (even if morally opposed to them) generally will support very broad amounts of freedom. Ultimately, the driving idea behind leftism is equality; in order to achieve equality (or at least move heavily in that direction; true equality is impossible), there cannot be freedom in any real sense. Things like the couple of freedoms leftists might support tend not to in most cases have any impact on equality one way or another. Freedom sharply conflicts with any plans or designs to impose equality.
Leftism is not opposed to freedom. Before you make broad assertions on the basis of liberty you should really become more aware of the philosophical underpinnings of the term "liberalism". Not as liberalism is now known in the American political sphere (social liberalism), but as it was the basis for your entire political epistemology. From the first sentence of the Wiki entry on liberalism, "Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism. What you are is a classical liberal, versus a social liberal, which you apparently despise. Now you know why the Democrats and Republicans are often referred to as the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of politics. Because philosophically, they are so closely related and undifferentiated as to be the wee-todd-did twins when they attempt any semblance of honest debate. This is why the bipolar party system you support is inherently flawed. It can't possibly represent anything but a gross generalization of the legitimate (not talking about communism, fascism, neo-nazi-ism, or any other extremism here) political viewpoints that Americans could want to put forward. Taken in league with the winner take all system -as opposed to a system of proportional representation - and the electoral college, any semblance of democracy is left wanting and bereft from our democratically inspired system of governance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
Rightists tend to support a broad amount of freedom. It is one of the defining characteristics of the Right. When the question is asked, "Should we have liberty or equality?", the Right chooses liberty. Where there tends to be debate is on matters of virtue, but there is debate, not any sort of universal consensus against freedom in as deemed to be "social" in modern political parlance. Even among those on the Right supportive of some restrictions in areas regarding morality and virtue, the amount of liberty supported is far broader than in any leftist ideology. Ultimately, most proponents of such laws on the Right support them for individualist reasons, not statist or collectivist ones. Pretty much all rightists are mostly or entirely individualistic in their outlook and all are opposed to statism. These ideas are some of the basic criteria used to define placement on the standard political spectrum.
You seem to downplay the role of the moral majority (which is neither) in terms of American Realpolitik. Any honest debate on the merits of rightism in context must take into account the wholesale hijacking of the rightist agenda by moral absolutism. Fail that, and intellectual failure is yours. For good reason, for the so called progressive movement which has picked up so much in the past two decades is an absolute response to that development.

Look, you can sit there and debate about rightism in a vacuum devoid of real world application, or you can take the leap and look at it in context. The unfortunate reality is that the two sides are separated by a far greater gulf of culture, religion, shared values, recreational drugs of choice and sexual proclivities than they are by any really meaningful political differences. If you want to draw lines, use our modern parlance, not some cherished relic you keep tucked away in some safe unassailable place in your mind where it can't be challenged by the real and changing world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
You are incorrect. Both sides of the spectrum don't like the Patriot Act or statism. The right is mostly opposed to laws like the Patriot Act. You can try to bring up neocons if you like, but ultimately their ideology is a derivative of that which dominates the Democratic Party, which is by no means a rightist one. What you seem to be referring to is really partisanship and vulgar politics, not the differences or likenesses between political ideologies and philosophies. The thing is, I was never talking about things from a partisan perspective. I am a staunch opponent of partisanship; I just recognize political parties as a necessary evil and also one of the only ways to really collectively promote commonly shared ideas. I also don't unwaveringly support Republicans (and I have voted against Republicans a number of times, although I have never voted for a Democrat).
I believe there are a fair number of people on both sides of the aisle (based upon their voting record) who are staunch believers in the Patriot Act. They seem to think it fairly trumps our Constitutional rights, and for that reason I will not ignore them. Frankly, I'm astonished that you could dismiss such a grievous act against liberty in the name of partisanship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
Thing is, your conclusions are based upon false premises. You are also making blanket generalizations of the two parties. For example, in the GOP, individual members, candidates, etc. can be anything from moderate left (like neocons or even more common modern liberals) to far right (like hardcore libertarians).
All the more reason to incorporate a multiparty system with elements of proportional representation. Hell, just give us two more parties by themselves and we'll see a world of difference.

By the way, libertarianism is in no way right wing. Libertarianism is libertarianism, and also has little to do with the party that co-opted that name with a big "L". Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave as we speak.
__________________
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?

-Patrick Henry
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-20-2010, 11:21 PM
welchy's Avatar
welchy welchy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Модесто
Posts: 1,270
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If you don't vote 100% gun rights then you need to get F off of this site.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-20-2010, 11:29 PM
Alaric's Avatar
Alaric Alaric is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midcoast Maine
Posts: 3,215
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by welchy View Post
If you don't vote 100% gun rights then you need to get F off of this site.
While I feel your spirit and applaud it, I disagree. I for one will vote 100% gun rights, but no one should have to leave or feel unwelcome because they voted their conscience. We're more inclusive than that. We understand that people have the right to vote any way they want.

Make no mistake. We protect our gun rights, because ultimately, that is how we protect our voting rights.
__________________
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?

-Patrick Henry
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 04-20-2010, 11:37 PM
Wild Squid Wild Squid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 503
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k1dude View Post
The number one issue for California is the economy. All other issues need to be set aside. Without a thriving economy, all other issues are meaningless.

So which candidate will do the best job of reviving the economy?

As far as the California budget is concerned, we are screwed no matter who is elected. The ONLY way to fix the California budget is bankruptcy. The unions are too strong, the contractual obligations too great, and the unfunded mandates too many.

Illegal immigration, legalization of drugs, same sex marriage, global warming, social engineering, 2nd ammendment rights, re-distribution of wealth, and all the rest of the issues are meaningless without a strong economy.

Vote economy. Then worry about the rest after the economy recovers.

So I ask you, who will do the best job with the economy?

Well said, and now that you ask who is best for the economy, I am the best for the economy. If I were governor, I would get audits done on ever y single state agency, public water utility, PG&E, everything to get rid of overspending and waste. Every state agency has the laziest workers ever, because they have a union to protect them from being fired for incompetence and a pension to see them through their whole life. Caltrans charges overtime for hours they haven't even worked yet, and are the most unproductive SOB's this side of the Mississippi. We need to find a way to tax all those illegal immigrants from our neighbor down south. They come here to make money and then send it all back to mexico, no wonder money is disappearing from CA. WE need to rid the state and preferably the whole country of outsourcing. No wonder we don't enough jobs to go around anymore, they're all going to countries with cheap labor. Sure most of my ideas are drastic ideas, but they are what will work and no politician has the balls to back them. Until then ya'll might as well brace yourself for worse to come, cause that's what's going to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-20-2010, 11:57 PM
heyjak's Avatar
heyjak heyjak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento Area (East Roseville) CA
Posts: 218
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Angry Sorry for you

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Squid View Post
Well said, and now that you ask who is best for the economy, I am the best for the economy. If I were governor, I would get audits done on ever y single state agency, public water utility, PG&E, everything to get rid of overspending and waste. Every state agency has the laziest workers ever, because they have a union to protect them from being fired for incompetence and a pension to see them through their whole life. Caltrans charges overtime for hours they haven't even worked yet, and are the most unproductive SOB's this side of the Mississippi. We need to find a way to tax all those illegal immigrants from our neighbor down south. They come here to make money and then send it all back to mexico, no wonder money is disappearing from CA. WE need to rid the state and preferably the whole country of outsourcing. No wonder we don't enough jobs to go around anymore, they're all going to countries with cheap labor. Sure most of my ideas are drastic ideas, but they are what will work and no politician has the balls to back them. Until then ya'll might as well brace yourself for worse to come, cause that's what's going to happen.
You don't know your *ss from a hole in the ground regarding Caltrans! After 40 years working there, I can tell you- you are highly mis-informed. Yes, there is waste at every government agency, but not to the degree that you are assuming! I totally agree with you about the illegal alien issues, but I can assure you that Caltrans is not any where near as bad as you are assuming.
__________________
CGF Contributor
NRA Endowment Member
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-22-2010, 11:32 PM
sarge1572 sarge1572 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 90631
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default brown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legasat View Post
I never said he has been certified, just certifiable.



I guess that is where you and I will have to disagree.


I guess my only point is, so many of you seem to be expecting so much. I am expecting nothing but more heartache from which ever one of them gets elected.
He didn't get the nick-name "Governor Moonbeam" by accident. Sounds like you're a straight party line guy!! You need to do more reading about jerry, not just his political fliers. I don't think I can vote for whitman, but I definitely won't vote for brown. If you think things are bad now, if moonbeam gets re-elected... you ain't seen NUTHIN' yet!! California's economy will be in the same shape as its' education system.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-22-2010, 11:38 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,989
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarge1572 View Post
He didn't get the nick-name "Governor Moonbeam" by accident.
Yep, he got it as a nickname from Chicago columnist Mike Royko who actually apologized for it later.

Brown had proposed using satellite links for the state phone/telecom system to save money. Turns out he was a bit prescient and can wear it with honor.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-23-2010, 1:17 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Brown had proposed using satellite links
All that crazy technology stuff is obviously socialist.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-23-2010, 1:23 AM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,195
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

What? Technology? Satellites?

What a crazy concept!
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Last edited by bigmike82; 04-23-2010 at 1:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-23-2010, 9:39 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,595
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hasserl View Post
First post here, I've been a lurker for a while and have been tempted to join in several threads, but this one pushed me over the edge to register and join the conversation. I cannot believe any rational person would support Jerry Brown for governor, you've got to be out of your mind. It was Brown who started this state on the downward spiral it has been on ever since his administration. It was Brown who pulled the plug on infrastructure development that has led to the exceedingly poor conditions of our roadways and the rolling brownouts and outright power failures we have today. Do you like traffic gridlock, you can thank Brown for it next time you're stuck in a jam, or when the lights go out during the next heat wave. The mentality of reduce, restrict and regulate was promulgated by Brown and is the overriding mentality of Democratic politicians to this day.

Brown is anti growth and supports government controls over development, forcing high density residential developments, using the Global Warming Act for social engineering. Do not deceive yourself, he has no qualms using the power of government to enforce behaviors and practices he favors and restrict those he, or his supporters, do not.

Re: unions, Brown is on record supporting unions and government jobs:

Don't mince words, guy. Tell us what you really think.

Just kidding.

Actually, even though I disagree with you & will vote for JB in the Fall, I'm happy that you stopped lurking & are joining in. Welcome to the forums.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-23-2010, 9:42 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What I find amazing is that the explanation for the honorable nickname Moonbeam is all over this board, including earlier in this thread, and yet apparently there are still people who are just joining the party.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-23-2010, 9:44 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,989
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
What I find amazing is that the explanation for the honorable nickname Moonbeam is all over this board, including earlier in this thread, and yet apparently there are still people who are just joining the party.
What's happening is Republican campaign consultants are beginning their work. Many of these guys come from out of state and have no idea of history or context, and their job is just to dump cr*p. Many of them are younger than I am, and since I lived thru JB's governance I can kinda run reality against what they're saying - and they're found wanting in the truth dept.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-23-2010, 10:39 AM
zukieast zukieast is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Peoples Republika of Kalifornia
Posts: 81
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I applied to bring my machine gun and silencers into the state along with my non OLL's. Got my applications back, and check back, with a letter from the DOJ stating that they did not do it anymore.

I contacted them and had a 3 way phone call with the permit and legal dept, citing the CA codes from the DOJ website that stated a person moving into the state can bring in weapons and register them even after the registration period. The permit lady told me "we just dont do it anymore", while the legal guy said yes you can based on the written laws.

I asked for an updated memo, amendment etc. that would counter and they could not provide. Only if I was Law enforcement or Active Duty military stationed here.

So, unless you have a crap load of money and a string of lawyers on retainers you are not going to get a MG permit in CA.
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 11:32 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.