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
  #1  
Old 08-26-2008, 1:07 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Unsafe handguns list

Moved from here

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...=86833&page=12


Quote: Originally Posted by lrdchivalry

"As I have said before, you can try and spin it any way you want but calling for a ban is exactly what you calling for. Again, put all that effort into removing the list instead of calling for another ban."

OK....some insist on painting a certain position as anti-LEO, and you create the "ban" boogeyman.....

BUT SINCE LEO (in general) WILL NOT PUBLICLY OPPOSE the unsafe handgun list in any reasonable numbers, lets look at this in a dispassionate way to find a realistic political pathway to getting rid of the unsafe handgun list:

Approach 1: just work solely to remove the safe gun list.


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops will sit out the PUBLIC debate, (even the pro-gun LEOs) because they are intimidated by the brass, and they can have non-safe guns anyway
C. Political brass LEO will publicly oppose any change
D. lib media slams proponents as nutcases opposed to public safety
E. Demos in Sacto feel they can torpedo or ignore issue


Result: limited number of proponents, and far more limited number of popularly-influential proponents. Safe list continues, average citizens lose...and LEO remain "special"


Approach 2A: Work to Remove LEO exemption from safe gun list (work to remove the safe gun list, BY increasing the # of proponents who PUBLICLY WANT it gone)


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops (privately?) oppose? Union involvement?
C. Political brass either sit it out or support removing LEO exemption
D. lib media talks about LEOs with unsafe handguns
E. Demos in Sacto can't ignore issue


Initial result: LEO loses "special" status, and/or there is a significant public discussion about "unsafe handguns"

OR - the discussion and politics leads directly to repealing the unsafe handgun baloney...


Approach 2B (follow-on to 2A): work to remove the safe gun list, with increased # of proponents who PUBLICLY WANT it gone


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops get their unions publicly involved so that they can have guns they want. Some may feel that they can publicly support removal of safe gun list under these conditions.
C. Political brass either sit it out or are neutered by union position
D. lib media has much harder time slamming opponents, discussion about "unsafe handguns"
E. Demos in Sacto can't ignore issue


Result: larger number of proponents, and more popularly-influential proponents (LEOs). Average citizens win and LEOs win.


This is not about being anti-LEO, its about convincing LEO to support our cause, because it will become their cause....and because I don't see an alternative realistic political path to getting rid of the unsafe handguns list.

If you have one - post it.

If I've made unwarranted assumptions - discuss it.
__________________

Last edited by GuyW; 08-26-2008 at 2:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2008, 1:24 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I completely agree. The dual treatment, the privileged class and the outright legalized fiction has got to be thrown in the trash along with their ability to say "Sucks for you, not my problem."
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2008, 1:44 PM
SkyStorm82's Avatar
SkyStorm82 SkyStorm82 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North LA County
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Why stop there? Lets work on making the rest of the country follow our lead in gun laws. We'll finally all be "equal" and they wont look down upon us "loony" Californians. Instead...they will stand with us and fight!

Lets go over to arfcom and pitch our plan. I really think they'll go for it.

Come on....and people wonder why the "wall" exists for some cops and some... "civilians"
__________________
Strike Hold!
2/504th P.I.R. White Devils
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2008, 1:52 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
OK....some insist on painting a certain position as anti-LEO, and you create the "ban" boogeyman.....
Create the ban boogeyman? The unsafe handgun list is a ban on certain types of guns. Adding other people to the list of people who can only buy from the list is also a ban so there was no creation of anything other then another ban. Nice play on words to make it sound like it's not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
BUT SINCE LEO (in general) WILL NOT PUBLICLY OPPOSE the unsafe handgun list in any reasonable numbers, lets look at this in a dispassionate way to find a realistic political pathway to getting rid of the unsafe handgun list:

Approach 1: just work solely to remove the safe gun list.


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops will sit out the PUBLIC debate, (even the pro-gun LEOs) because they are intimidated by the brass, and they can have non-safe guns anyway
C. Political brass LEO will publicly oppose any change
D. lib media slams proponents as nutcases opposed to public safety
E. Demos in Sacto feel they can torpedo or ignore issue


Result: limited number of proponents, and far more limited number of popularly-influential proponents. Safe list continues, average citizens lose...and LEO remain "special"
Possibly but instead of taking up the challenge you're advocating the creation of another ban.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
Approach 2A: Work to Remove LEO exemption from safe gun list (work to remove the safe gun list, BY increasing the # of proponents who PUBLICLY WANT it gone)


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops (privately?) oppose? Union involvement?
C. Political brass either sit it out or support removing LEO exemption
D. lib media talks about LEOs with unsafe handguns
E. Demos in Sacto can't ignore issue


Initial result: LEO loses "special" status, and/or there is a significant public discussion about "unsafe handguns"

OR - the discussion and politics leads directly to repealing the unsafe handgun baloney...
I see.. Let's get a gun ban repealed by adding another gun ban.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
Approach 2B: work to remove the safe gun list, with increased # of proponents who PUBLICLY WANT it gone


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops get their unions publicly involved so that they can have guns they want. Some may feel that they can publicly support removal of safe gun list under these conditions.
C. Political brass either sit it out or are neutered by union position
D. lib media has much harder time slamming opponents, discussion about "unsafe handguns"
E. Demos in Sacto can't ignore issue


Result: larger number of proponents, and more popularly-influential proponents (LEOs). Average citizens win and LEOs win.
Might possibly work, however, adding an additional ban is not the way to go.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
This is not about being anti-LEO, its about convincing LEO to support our cause, because it will become their cause....and because I don't see an alternative realistic political path to getting rid of the unsafe handguns list.
How about trying to repeal the list instead creating another ban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
If you have one - post it.
I did... My statement was to put the time and energy in repealing the list instead of creating a new ban, however, that wasn't good enough some people.
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2008, 1:54 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin2 View Post
I completely agree. The dual treatment, the privileged class and the outright legalized fiction has got to be thrown in the trash along with their ability to say "Sucks for you, not my problem."

Then work on repealing the list instead of instituting another ban.
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2008, 1:58 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
I see.. Let's get a gun ban repealed by adding another gun ban.
How about actually engaging the topic and the thought process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
I did... My statement was to put the time and energy in repealing the list instead of creating a new ban, however, that wasn't good enough some people.
It wasn't good enough because it was merely a generic statement about "lets do something" with no plan of action or specificity at all.

It smells like "do anything except endanger MY special interests"
.

Last edited by GuyW; 08-26-2008 at 2:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:01 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,158
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

How many rank-and-file cops actually care one way or the other about the handgun roster? They’ll carry what they’re issued.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:11 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 7,981
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

While we wait for incorporation, another approach to take would be to get COE holders the ability to buy unrostered handguns. This would allow us to avoid attacking the registry head-on ( which we might not have the political capital to do ) and position an exemption that might be palatable to all parties involved.

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:17 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
While we wait for incorporation, another approach to take would be to get COE holders the ability to buy unrostered handguns. This would allow us to avoid attacking the registry head-on ( which we might not have the political capital to do ) and position an exemption that might be palatable to all parties involved.

-- Michael
OK - good post.

Now - how do we have enough political power to cause the Dems in Sacto to create this loophole in their own safe-handguns-list law?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:20 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
How many rank-and-file cops actually care one way or the other about the handgun roster? They’ll carry what they’re issued.
The "issue" is NOT (so much) the LE officially-issued guns, its LEOs privately purchased handguns.....they can buy models that non-special CA citizens can't.

As to the number of cops that do (or would) care, I don't know - any estimates?

...some people are just more equal than others....

Last edited by GuyW; 08-26-2008 at 2:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:20 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
How about actually engaging the topic and the thought process?
I did... You just didn't like my response.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
It wasn't good enough because it was merely a generic statement about "lets do something" with no plan of action or specificity at all.
It smells like "do anything except endanger MY interests"
Edit: How about gun owners getting together to discuss a plan of attack to get the list repealed.
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:29 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
I did... You just didn't like my response.

Please show me _how_ your post was a substantive response to IDENTIFYING realistic political PATHS to success....

....rather just than a quick throw-off of, "don't mess with my ch%^, man"
.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:41 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Create the ban boogeyman? The unsafe handgun list is a ban on certain types of guns. Adding other people to the list of people who can only buy from the list is also a ban so there was no creation of anything other then another ban. Nice play on words to make it sound like it's not.
It's not a ban - its called "equal protection under the law"....

...that means everyone gets treated equally by the law unless and until a reasonable articulatable statement can be made that supports treating citizens unequally.

In this case, there is no reasonable articulatable idea supporting citizens and citizen-cops buying their PRIVATE guns from different lists.

Instead, it was just politically expedient for the Dems to (once again) use LEO to accomplish their goal at the least cost to themselves.

Since rank-and-file citizen-cops apparently don't have control of their unions and LEO-politician-talking-heads, they may just have to live under the same f$%^up laws as the rest of we serfs....

Now, IF it happens that CA LEOs lose their special privilege to buy unsafe handguns....it will be because they did NOT pro-actively fight to get rid of the handgun list (or failed in their attempt to remain unConstitutionally "special").

"...with liberty and justice for ALL..."



.

Last edited by GuyW; 08-26-2008 at 3:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:50 PM
AaronHorrocks's Avatar
AaronHorrocks AaronHorrocks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,960
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Exclamation

Screwing people over in an attempt to get them 'on your side' is not a good tactic.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Are there any times when you don't have a loaded firearm within reach?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I support violence against communists.
The United States once fought and killed communists abroad. Domestically, persons suspect of being a communist faced interrogation, juries, and having their careers and lives destroyed.

Today, they walk among us. They’re on the television, they write for the newspapers, they have infiltrated the schools, the political system, and law enforcement. They call themselves Liberals.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-26-2008, 2:52 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronHorrocks View Post
Screwing people over in an attempt to get them 'on your side' is not a good tactic.
"...liberty and justice for ALL..." is "screwing people over"?

Do you have any substantive ideas to contribute?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-26-2008, 3:00 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyStorm82 View Post
....and people wonder why the "wall" exists for some cops and some... "civilians"

Gee - that wouldn't be because of special unConstitutional privileges extended to LE but not citizens, would it?

.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-26-2008, 3:19 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,099
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Original Propaganda for law.

SB15 was passed on emotion, not fact, many of the people who voted for the bill(yes, I know they are elected representatives) in all honesty are probably clueless.

The rhetoric that the law will save the lives of children is why this law passed and it will be the rhetoric that we have to go against.

What we need is a different approach, we need to attack this law for what it is, a fraud. Basically the law has two features most of us want knocked out of the law, the chamber indicator and the dreaded mag safety feature.

A young child isn't going to know the difference regardless of what kind of indicator we have on a gun, which is why we need firearms safety training in the schools.

The magazine disconnect is a feature that could render a fiream useless when needed most, if we approach that it does more harm than good and actually costs lives.

If it is such a great feature, why is it most militaries and police agencies don't have this feature on their guns.

The handgun drop test is something that would be a hard one to fight, I'll leave it at that.

One issue to consider is that most people who are non gun owners have no idea how expensive quality guns are and laws that drive up the costs of firearms disproportionately disarm lower income people.

Combine that with rules in public housing that prohibit gun ownership and you have created a victim class. If that class is non white, and they don't trust the police because of bad public relations, things can really get out of hand.

In essence, SB15 doesn't save lives, it actually costs lives, it is a dishonest smoke and mirrors solution to avoid dealing with "real social issues".

Nail Liberals for promoting solutions to "divert attention from real problems".

Most gun laws are in fact "diversion laws" so that the publics attention is shifted away from government policies that are disasters.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-26-2008, 3:25 PM
hawk1's Avatar
hawk1 hawk1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,590
iTrader: 80 / 100%
Default

First, you need to call the list what it is. It is not the "unsafe handgun list". I don't much care if those words were used so everyone will know what your talking about. Call it what they call it. The "Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale". You add the words "unsafe handguns" and the people or politicians are going to say they only want "safe" handguns to be sold, not unsafe ones...

Second, instead of calling LEO's "special" in your examples, why don't use the word "exempt"? After all, that is their status in regards to this. Your use of the word "special" is being used as an "anti-LEO" reference and shows your disdain for their exemption. The individual LEO did not fight for their exempt status, it was given by the politicians to get the LEO brass on board. My opinion is the brass could care less what the individual LEO cares or wants.

Third, you were given a great idea about using the COE as another class to be exempted. Run with it, debate it, and see what comes of that. As an outright removal of the "certified" list will not happen. Not unless "incorporation" helps to remove it. Nobody knows when or if that'll happen.
Many if not all gun owners can get a COE and that very well may be the best vehicle to get the "uncertified handguns" back into our hands.
__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-26-2008, 4:14 PM
AaronHorrocks's Avatar
AaronHorrocks AaronHorrocks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,960
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
"...liberty and justice for ALL..." is "screwing people over"?

Do you have any substantive ideas to contribute?
Violating the rights of LEOs in an attempt to get them to "come to our side" is infact screwing them over, just as the state has screwed us over. Two wrongs don't make a right. We don't need gun owners devided upon ourselves, because we need to win. Dirty (Clintonesque) tactics aren't going to solve the problem here.

Seeing that I chimmed in on page 2, my ideas were already mentioned. No need to repeat them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Are there any times when you don't have a loaded firearm within reach?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I support violence against communists.
The United States once fought and killed communists abroad. Domestically, persons suspect of being a communist faced interrogation, juries, and having their careers and lives destroyed.

Today, they walk among us. They’re on the television, they write for the newspapers, they have infiltrated the schools, the political system, and law enforcement. They call themselves Liberals.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-26-2008, 4:17 PM
rbgaynor's Avatar
rbgaynor rbgaynor is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 232
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk1 View Post
Second, instead of calling LEO's "special" in your examples, why don't use the word "exempt"?
Because that is what the exemption does - it creates a special class of protected persons. The good thing is that, post incorporation, this special class gives us grounds to challenge the roster under the 14th amendments equal protection clause.
__________________
- Brian

Oceanside Practical Pistol Club - USPSA and IDPA matches in San Diego County
Linea de Fuego - USPSA and 3-Gun matches in San Diego County
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-26-2008, 4:20 PM
AaronHorrocks's Avatar
AaronHorrocks AaronHorrocks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,960
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
One issue to consider is that most people who are non gun owners have no idea how expensive quality guns are and laws that drive up the costs of firearms disproportionately disarm lower income people.
Darn tootin'!

I got the chance to talk to a cute chick from Texas that WASN'T a gun owner. She didn't see the need. I told her I was more of a collector, my last purchase being an old Czech vz52 pistol, roughly $200, plus another $100 for the transfer... I told her I was planning on getting a few more since they were so cheap.

"$300 is cheap?" she said. "For a pistol? You bettcha!" I then went on to quote prices on some very common handguns in the $800 to over $1,000 range and she was blown away that they were so expensive.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Are there any times when you don't have a loaded firearm within reach?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I support violence against communists.
The United States once fought and killed communists abroad. Domestically, persons suspect of being a communist faced interrogation, juries, and having their careers and lives destroyed.

Today, they walk among us. They’re on the television, they write for the newspapers, they have infiltrated the schools, the political system, and law enforcement. They call themselves Liberals.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-26-2008, 4:39 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,680
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

SB15 is readily attackable because it allows LEOs to bypass not just for duty sake, but for personal use too.

SB15 Rostering has already been made somewhat irrelevant because of single-shot & single-action revolver conversions.

Poor Alison's handcrafted law (when she worked for Jack Scott) has been riven asunder, and she's probably crying at her desk, seeing all the single-shot AR/AK pistols getting registered.
__________________

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
  #23  
Old 08-26-2008, 4:59 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 7,981
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
OK - good post.

Now - how do we have enough political power to cause the Dems in Sacto to create this loophole in their own safe-handguns-list law?
Well, if incorporation is coming, it's actually in the Dem's best interests to do it themselves.

COE requires fingerprinting and a background check; certainly getting a COE is more involved than the actual requirements for buying a firearm. Therefore, from a Dem "public safety" position, a person buying a firearm with a COE undergoes more vetting than one who buys without.

COE and a C&R currently allows one to skip the 1 handgun per 30 days requirement.

If the Dems were smart they would change the law such that:
1) COE allows one to buy unrostered handguns ( like a LEO )
2) COE allows one to skip the 10 day waiting period
3) COE allows one to not need to provide documents to prove CA residency.
4) drop the C&R requirement for 1 handgun per 30; COE only needed.

Once incorporation comes, legal challenges WILL come. The handgun roster will be challenged. As will the waiting period.

However, if the law was changed to the benefit of COE holders, when a challenge arose - and it will come on equal protection grounds - the gov't can come back and say: "Anyone who wants a unrostered handgun can get one - just get a COE." This stance allows the gov't to protect the population-at-large from firearms that haven't been through the safety testing ( ), while not infringing on the 2nd amendment rights ( x 2 ) of the residents of the state.

If the law isn't changed, then the gov't is risking the whole roster being tossed. And waiting periods being tossed. Etc.

Incentivizing applications for COEs increases the public safety, as more firearms enthusiast will be willing to go through the process to get one if there are concrete benefits. Purchases made with COEs will require less scrutiny during the DROS process, since the purchasers have been pre-vetted. As well, with a unique serial numbered COE, the gov't would have greater confidence in the identity of the purchaser. Gov't resources could then be focussed on the background checks for non-COE purchases, which of course would still be subject to a 10 day waiting period/1-per-30/handgun roster/etc.

Everybody is then happy: gunowners with a COE would essentially have the same access that gunowners generally have in other states. The state benefits by having the folks that generally buy more guns as a whole go through a more stringent initial background check, and scarce resources could then be focussed on transactions that involve purchasers that do not have the COE.

So it's win-win.

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-26-2008, 5:09 PM
Calguns2000 Calguns2000 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 173
iTrader: 13 / 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
While we wait for incorporation, another approach to take would be to get COE holders the ability to buy unrostered handguns. This would allow us to avoid attacking the registry head-on ( which we might not have the political capital to do ) and position an exemption that might be palatable to all parties involved.

-- Michael
This is a great idea.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-26-2008, 5:46 PM
alex00's Avatar
alex00 alex00 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 841
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Guy- I'm not sure I have anything to contribute in terms of ways to fight this law, but I see some problems with your proposal. Most, if not all, LE agencies in California have prohibitions against LEOs speaking out for political causes. This has been pointed out before. You may very well have many LEO supporters of your plan, ready, willing and able to speak publicly about the law. The only catch is they cannot identify themselves as LEOs when speaking out. So, you'll end up with a group of civilians speaking out, without any public LEO clout.

I don't think that any agencies would ever come around after a ban on non-rostered handguns. As long as they can have functioning handguns in the hands of their officers, they won't care what list they come from.

Your plan takes a big risk, creating a ban, in the hopes of swaying enough public support to repeal the whole thing. We need to remember that we live in California, and that we as gun owners are a minority. Gun owners that care about laws and changing them are an even smaller minority.

I wish I had the answers, but I don't. There have to be some challenges to the law. I'm hopeful that someday we will see the end of the AWB. I'm sure we can also see the end of the handgun list. I think the answer involves trying to involve the manufacturers. California is a big state, and even though gun buyers are a minority, we still make a big portion of sales for gun companies.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-26-2008, 8:13 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I think we may be getting a little too deep into the politics of envy here. As I see it the big problem with the “list” is:

(A) That it cuts way down on the available choices at the local retailer.

(B) It cuts down on choices for concealed carry.


You can own and or open carry anything you want. You can PPT “off list” pistols. I think the only thing the LE exemption does is allow an LEO to order off list from the retailer.

I don’t see that including LEO’s in this fiasco would create any significant amount of political pressure. I don’t see how it would increase the options for you and I at the local gun store, just the opposite. If an LEO buys an 1897 jerkwhacker from a dealer and decides he doesn’t like it, viola, it’s back in the store as a PPT.

Your efforts would be better spent electing sympathetic sheriffs. I have two “off list” pistols on my CCW.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-26-2008, 8:35 PM
nobody33 nobody33 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This would in my estimate affect less than 1000 cops statewide. Not very many. And they wouldn't care very much. Cops in England don't even want to be armed. I know some cops who are the same way (very few). Your not going to get any more support now against the ban than you already have.

Cops can also buy AR's which is different from the list. Do you want to take those away too?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-26-2008, 9:26 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,777
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We have been divided and conquered.

The only reasonable way to attack the Safe Handgun List is to wait for incorporation, and then press a 14A equal protection lawsuit against it. The idea would be to get the federal courts to declare it unconstitutional to put cops on a different playing field than ordinary citizens. At that point, the ball would be in Sacramento's court: either abandon the list or make it apply to LEO too.

The right answer is that they would abandon the list.

Who knows if they would do the right thing? It depends on how much heat the police unions would bring to bear on Sacramento.

Good news is, if we managed to get that court decision, it ought to be the end of other "divided and conquered" laws such as microstamping.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-26-2008, 11:54 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,680
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Bulgron's got it - clearly & succinctly, as usual
__________________

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
  #30  
Old 08-27-2008, 7:09 AM
SOneThreeCoupe SOneThreeCoupe is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fallbrook, CA
Posts: 188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't understand the list.

Loaded chamber indicators as well as magazine disconnects are not even covered by last year's HSC study guide. How is someone going to identify them correctly if they aren't even covered by the state study guide?

I just took my HSC yesterday. Were the magazine disconnect or loaded chamber indicator mentioned at all? No.

I did my handling demonstration as well. Was I asked to point out a loaded chamber indicator or how a magazine disconnect works? No. I did a press check to see if the weapon was loaded. I kept my finger the hell out of the trigger guard at all times.

The handgun safety booklet emphasizes gun safety through proper handling and storage methods. It does not force us to buy guns which pass a government test, at the expense of gun manufacturers, in order to be safe.

I'm all for an equal protection case. I want the roster done away with.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-27-2008, 9:46 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,680
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOneThreeCoupe View Post
I don't understand the list.

Loaded chamber indicators as well as magazine disconnects are not even covered by last year's HSC study guide. How is someone going to identify them correctly if they aren't even covered by the state study guide?
Your mistake is assuming rationality in gun laws.

These are kinda passive safeties, and the gov't HSC test is a basic safety test (don't be an Iggy, etc.) The Roster is really just applicable to *dealers*, who are the ones who check the list and the line of enforcement. (CA gun dealers are really state agents for the DOJ.)

THe HSC card and the Roster are two separate laws and were not really coordinated.
__________________

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
  #32  
Old 08-27-2008, 10:08 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1200 View Post
Guy- I'm not sure I have anything to contribute in terms of ways to fight this law, but I see some problems with your proposal. Most, if not all, LE agencies in California have prohibitions against LEOs speaking out for political causes. This has been pointed out before. You may very well have many LEO supporters of your plan, ready, willing and able to speak publicly about the law. The only catch is they cannot identify themselves as LEOs when speaking out. So, you'll end up with a group of civilians speaking out, without any public LEO clout.

I don't think that any agencies would ever come around after a ban on non-rostered handguns. As long as they can have functioning handguns in the hands of their officers, they won't care what list they come from.

Your plan takes a big risk, creating a ban, in the hopes of swaying enough public support to repeal the whole thing. We need to remember that we live in California, and that we as gun owners are a minority. Gun owners that care about laws and changing them are an even smaller minority.

I wish I had the answers, but I don't. There have to be some challenges to the law. I'm hopeful that someday we will see the end of the AWB. I'm sure we can also see the end of the handgun list. I think the answer involves trying to involve the manufacturers. California is a big state, and even though gun buyers are a minority, we still make a big portion of sales for gun companies.
Excellent post!
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown

Last edited by lrdchivalry; 08-27-2008 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-27-2008, 10:27 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronHorrocks View Post
Violating the rights of LEOs in an attempt to get them to "come to our side" is infact screwing them over, just as the state has screwed us over. Two wrongs don't make a right. We don't need gun owners devided upon ourselves, because we need to win. Dirty (Clintonesque) tactics aren't going to solve the problem here.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronHorrocks View Post
Seeing that I chimmed in on page 2, my ideas were already mentioned. No need to repeat them.
It wasn't good enough for him since it doesn't include a new ban. Remember it's the "if I can't have it no one can" mentality. Instead of putting all the time and energy in repealing the list we will just work on banning it from those people as well, under the guise of it's not a ban.

No matter how he spins it, removing access to guns from anyone is still a ban.
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-27-2008, 10:46 AM
motorhead's Avatar
motorhead motorhead is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: DAGO
Posts: 3,411
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

the ca handgun roster is one of the most repressive gun control laws ever passed. mfrs. want nothing to do with it for 1 very important reason, liability. what if a certain weapon fails? results are public, ambulance chaser freeding frenzy to follow. it limits drasticly, the number and type of new handguns entering ca.
as far as getting rank and file le to support any pro gun legislation, good luck with that. they are above this particular law and risk going against their depts. anti gun policies.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-27-2008, 2:16 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,451
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
the ca handgun roster is one of the most repressive gun control laws ever passed. mfrs. want nothing to do with it for 1 very important reason, liability. what if a certain weapon fails? results are public, ambulance chaser freeding frenzy to follow. it limits drasticly, the number and type of new handguns entering ca.
as far as getting rank and file le to support any pro gun legislation, good luck with that. they are above this particular law and risk going against their depts. anti gun policies.
Generally right, except for this:
Quote:
mfrs. want nothing to do with it for 1 very important reason, liability. what if a certain weapon fails?
'Failing' the tests is pretty unlikely - even acknowledged low-end pistols in the Raven/Davis/Lorcin/Bryco category passed easily.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-28-2008, 6:28 AM
SOneThreeCoupe SOneThreeCoupe is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fallbrook, CA
Posts: 188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Your mistake is assuming rationality in gun laws.
I assume no rationality; I was just trying to point out the irrationality. It's not that I actually cannot understand, it's more that I cannot wrap my mind around their rationale for passing inane laws.

This is yet another example of the state trying to control our behavior. We are too stupid to reduce accidents ourselves, so they step in.
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 11:28 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.