[hoffmang]

Attorney General Brown filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to Grant review of McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago and to find that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.

A couple of passages:

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
California has a strong interest in protecting
the constitutional rights of its citizens. But unlike
many states, California has no state constitutional
counterpart to the Second Amendment. Unless the
protections of the Second Amendment extend to
citizens living in the States as well as to those living
in federal enclaves, California citizens could be
deprived of the constitutional right to possess
handguns in their homes as affirmed in District of
Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

THESE PETITIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED
TO AFFIRM THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STATES AND
TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE SCOPE OF
PERMISSIBLE FIREARMS REGULATIONS.

Further guidance on these issues is needed in
California, which has been a national leader in
passing common-sense legislation to regulate
firearms. The Unsafe Handgun Act, for example,
aims to reduce handgun crime and promote handgun
safety. Cal. Penal Code § 12125 et seq. It prohibits
the manufacture or sale of any “unsafe handgun” in
California, including those that lack certain safety
features such as a chamber-load indicator. Cal.
Penal Code § 12126(c). This law has furthered
important governmental interests while not
interfering with the ability of our state’s residents to
purchase and possess a wide range of handguns:
Over 1,300 handguns have been certified by
California as meeting the law’s requirements. See
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/. Nonetheless, California is
presently defending the law against a federal
constitutional challenge. Peña v. Cid, 2:09-cv-01185-
FCD-KJM, 2009 (U.S. Dist., E.D. Cal.).

-Gene

[Steyr_223]

Wow! Great news!

Jerry Brown for Gov!

[tiki]

Wow.

[Untamed1972]

"Further guidance on these issues is needed in
California, which has been a national leader in
passing common-sense legislation to regulate
firearms."

CA has common sense gun regulation?

[retired]

That is fantastic!

[Librarian]

Jerry wants a quid pro quo?

[rrr70]

No way!

constitutional right to possess
handguns in their homes

Only in homes?

[yellowfin]

He still called the laws "common sense", rather than idiotic and useless, so I guess it's a baby step.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by yellowfin

He still called the laws "common sense", rather than idiotic and useless, so I guess it's a baby step.

He's using one item to cover for the other.

Please ignore the side-noise, proceed directly to the RKBA.

[mat19er8]

The ball is rolling now!

[berto]

Time to reregister so I can vote for Jerry instead of Gav.

[trashman]

Holy ****!!! Great news!

--Neill

[VegasND]

Very good news.

[Joe]

Wow. I'm shocked.

[Aegis]

I must admit that I was skeptical about his sincerity towards the 2A and the rights of gun owners. After seeing this, he will get my vote for governor.

Gene and Bill W were right about Brown. It appears he is on our side on this issue.

[N6ATF]

LOL

[Liberty1]

Jerry is walking a tight rope. He is on the "Rights" side of incorporation and that is all that is at issue here.

[1BigPea]

OH wow, this is huge.

[artherd]

Jerry is a friend, let's keep him electable!

[bwiese]

Please understand the Pena v. Cid "Roster" lawsuit etc vs this as a bit of a left-hand, right-hand issue.

[N6ATF]

Except those "rights" must be infringed, with language like:

This law has furthered important governmental interests while not interfering with the ability of our state’s residents to purchase and possess a wide range of handguns

The important governmental interest is interfering with residents' RKBA. More talking out of both sides of the mouth.

It's like saying cake is great, but only government-approved cake.

You can't have too much liberty.

[the_quark]

This is very, very nice. Kudos to Mr. Brown for doing the right thing. While it's certainly possible to wish his language had been firmer, that he's taking any stance like this at ALL in public is huge. He specifically indicates that this is very important to Californians since we have no state constitutional right to own and bear arms. He doesn't say so explicitly, but that implies that he's requesting that the Federal government protect our rights against our own state government. Is that not completely amazing?

Brown for Governor!

-Brett

[xxdabroxx]

things are picking back up again.

[HowardW56]

Could this be an end run attempt, if the court accepts the appeals, to have California's regulatory scheme found to be acceptible without there ever having been a trial?

[bsim]

Isn't there potential here for the Feds to assume the CA list, and impose it on all states?

(without considering the constitutionality of the list of course)

Basically, isn't he just saying
1) CA doesn't have RKBA in its' constitution
2) CA wants guidance (and resulting liabilities) from the feds
3) And, dear feds, look how much we've done for (against) guns rights so far - wanna share with the rest of the nation?

[Liberty1]

Originally Posted by HowardW56

Could this be an end run attempt, if the court accepts the appeals, to have California's regulatory scheme found to be acceptible without there ever having been a trial?

No, it is not at issue in those cases. Think of that language in his brief as "political cover" only.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by bsim

Isn't there potential here for the Feds to assume the CA list, and impose it on all states?

(without considering the constitutionality of the list of course)

Basically, isn't he just saying
1) CA doesn't have RKBA in its' constitution
2) CA wants guidance (and resulting liabilities) from the feds
3) And, dear feds, look how much we've done for (against) guns rights so far - wanna share with the rest of the nation?

No. Legislatively not possible at Fed level, and won't stand court review either (i.e, direct rocket to Supremes w/o worries about incorporation since Heller already applicable at Fed level).

[pullnshoot25]

This is some exciting shtuff! Damn right we are aware of our rights! CHYEAH!

Time to get the BHP repaired, I need a new gun to carry!

[artherd]

Originally Posted by bsim

Isn't there potential here for the Feds to assume the CA list, and impose it on all states?

(without considering the constitutionality of the list of course)

Basically, isn't he just saying
1) CA doesn't have RKBA in its' constitution
2) CA wants guidance (and resulting liabilities) from the feds
3) And, dear feds, look how much we've done for (against) guns rights so far - wanna share with the rest of the nation?

No, that would take legislative action which is untenable with the current makeup.

[EDR]

Very cool. About time.

[elSquid]

Wow. Just... wow.



-- Michael

[bsim]

Thanks bwiese and artherd, now I'll say YAY!

[7x57]

And does that make JB now unelectable in California in 2010? Or do the usual California rules just not apply to Jerry?

7x57

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by 7x57

And does that make JB now unelectable in California in 2010? Or do the usual California rules just not apply to Jerry?

Given 20+%ish margin over Gavin <sniff,sniff> Newsome - along with Kamala Harris running for AG, where there will be a one-two on the Tony Bologna family murder by a mulit-sancturaried illegal alien - he's got the lock for the Dem party.

The Republicans have their 'stellar' personalities, Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman. Neither are progun nor even neutral from what I hear. There is some attraction they might garner, as the state is broke and a sensible fiscal type may get some votes. But that's unlikely to take campaign-negative personalities and make winners out of 'em.

JB has enough momentum that the gun issue is 'way down there'. He's pro-choice, so that buries the gun issue. (#1...#3 vs. #7...#9 on typical list of concerns of voting Californians.)

But the fall race might be close enough that gunnies-for-Brown could assure a more comfortable margin. Understand that Brown's allies are the old-line skilled-trade unions (IBEW, etc. - as opposed to SEIU floorsweepers) - which are populated to some extent by good ol' boys who enjoy hunting, guns etc.

So the old rules apply: you do what you need to win.

[trashman]

Originally Posted by 7x57

And does that make JB now unelectable in California in 2010? Or do the usual California rules just not apply to Jerry?

The usual rules apply, but in terms of the general election this brief is gonna be lost (too arcane) on most anti-gun liberals and so my guess is it wouldn't dampen his polling statewide within the democratic party during the general election.

Secondarily (but more importantly) I think Brown is considered a threat by the California Agriculture industry (which is conservative, pro-business generally) given some of his wacky ideas on sustainable/organic farming. So he might be able to peel away some Republican votes there.

So from my vantage point it's a pretty nifty triangulation on his part in terms of the general election - particularly when Poizner and Whitman are not friends of the RKBA...

The real question is whether he can win the primary (good god let's hope so) against Newsom, and whether this brief would hurt him or not there.

--Neill

[bulgron]

Originally Posted by 7x57

And does that make JB now unelectable in California in 2010? Or do the usual California rules just not apply to Jerry?

7x57

Depends on whether the other candidates make it an issue.

I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't register as a Dem so as to vote for Brown in the primaries. Of course, it depends on if the Repubs can field anyone interesting enough to drag me to the Repub party for the primaries.

[bombmaster]

Im not buying..This sure smells.. You know you are anti-gun when you believe too many kids die to guns, yet you are pro-choice.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by bombmaster

Im not buying..This sure smells.. You
know you are anti-gun when you believe too many kids die to guns,
yet you are pro-choice.

We can lead you to water, but we can't make you think.

Some hard work has had good results.

[berto]

Originally Posted by 7x57

And does that make JB now unelectable in California in 2010? Or do the usual California rules just not apply to Jerry?

7x57

Brown will likely get endorsed by the LA mayor and win much of the hispanic vote. Hopefully he'll crush Newsome in the primary.

The republican candidates aren't stellar and they all sound the same. None are particularly friendly to our cause and none are likely to excite the base.

Brown has the 70s incarnation of himself to fight against. It still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many but putting Gav in Sac. isn't an option.

[Fjold]

Well, I'm impressed. I've been neutral on Jerry since he got elected as AG but this impresses me.