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 11-25-2016, 3:41 PM
Rivers's Avatar
Rivers Rivers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Poway, CA
Posts: 1,200
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default Can a pro-2A federal gov't help here in CA?

I was thinking about other issues (sanctuary cities, for example) and how the federal gov't can throw its weight around to "persuade" state and city governments to follow the law. And I thought about CA and the over-the-top anti-2A laws we have.

My idea is to write to our pro-2A Congressional representatives (mine is Issa, R-Vista) and encourage him to introduce legislation to withhold or suspend all federal funding, including profit-sharing from drug confiscations, to any state that has gun control laws with carve-outs or exemptions for law enforcement personnel, either as agencies or individuals. That would specifically undermine LE union support for laws like our "Safe Handgun Roster" and others. Those laws were passed with muscle of the unions only because they exempted the union members. If the unions reversed their support, legislators would repeal those laws or the state would lose millions of dollars in federal subsidies.

With the likelihood of a national CCW reciprocity law, this would be a nice addition and consistent with leveling the playing field.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Basic Pistol Shooting
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-25-2016, 3:59 PM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,432
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

Yes, they can. The states have virtually no say on any issues where the feds can't come in and push them around.

This is not in keeping with the vision of the framers, but it is the reality. The oppression of rights by the State wasn't in their vision either.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-25-2016, 4:51 PM
Milsurp Collector's Avatar
Milsurp Collector Milsurp Collector is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 4,682
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rivers View Post
That would specifically undermine LE union support for laws like our "Safe Handgun Roster" and others. Those laws were passed with muscle of the unions only because they exempted the union members. If the unions reversed their support, legislators would repeal those laws or the state would lose millions of dollars in federal subsidies.
Nice and popular theory around here, but it doesn't explain Prop. 63.

Prop. 63 was opposed by several law enforcement organizations:

California State Sheriff’s Association
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Fish & Game Warden’s Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association
Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County
Western State Sheriff’s Association
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Law Enforcement Action Network

and sheriffs:

San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon
Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko
Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon E. Lopey
Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff
Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux
Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea
Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims
Glenn County Sheriff Rich Warren
Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood
Madera County Sheriff Jay Varney
Mariposa County Sheriff Douglas Binnewies

Even though Prop. 63 was opposed by law enforcement, and there was little if any LE "union muscle" used to promote it, it still got 7,970,639 Yes votes (62.82%) compared to 4,716,466 No votes (37.18%). In other words, it won in a landslide.

There is a theory often stated around here that if there were no exemptions for law enforcement in California gun control laws, those laws wouldn't get passed. That really overestimates the importance of law enforcement exemptions to getting the laws passed, and underestimates and ignores the strong support for ever more gun control among California legislators and the Californians who elect and re-elect those pro-gun control legislators. When given a chance to vote on it directly as they were with Prop. 63, the voters of California strongly support any additional gun controls that can be piled on top of what are already some of the strictest gun controls in the country. Those voters are going to support gun control regardless of whether police unions support the laws or not.

Focusing on law enforcement exemptions is certainly a cause for resentment, but it misses the bigger picture. A majority of California gun owners think California needs even more gun control. If you ask them if police officers should get exemptions from the gun control laws, they would probably say "of course. We trust them with guns." But even if there were no exemptions for LE a majority of California voters would still support more gun control.

The feds aren't going to save California gun owners. Look how many new gun control laws have been passed in California since 2008 (Heller) and 2010 (McDonald). Even national concealed carry reciprocity if passed wouldn't help California gun owners who don't have a California CCW permit.


.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-25-2016, 5:18 PM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,328
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Well, the Feds most certainly could do like they have before for other civil rights. But why would they? The free state representatives gain little from helping us. CCW reciprocity is only for their voters' benefit (so they can travel with their CCW without going to jail).

Maybe a freshly stacked SCOTUS (or even 9th) will help us. Maybe not.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-25-2016, 6:55 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 812
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
Well, the Feds most certainly could do like they have before for other civil rights. But why would they? The free state representatives gain little from helping us. CCW reciprocity is only for their voters' benefit (so they can travel with their CCW without going to jail).

Maybe a freshly stacked SCOTUS (or even 9th) will help us. Maybe not.
Just like in the civil rights case the Feds turned a deaf ear to what was going on in the southern states until MLK started with all the protesting and the Feds could no longer ignore things and did something about the discrimination it will be the same with gun control. As for CCW reciprocity it want mean anything in the the anti gun states because they will simply ignore the law unless the Feds really enforce it and start to shut down some of the anti gun laws in the anti gun states.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-25-2016, 8:18 PM
2Aon2wheels's Avatar
2Aon2wheels 2Aon2wheels is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 388
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

We need to stack the court first, then ram doen our agenda through federal legislature. A pro 2nd bench will be with us much longer than a federal law.

Strategy people, start thinking it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-25-2016, 8:31 PM
penguinman penguinman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Aon2wheels View Post
We need to stack the court first, then ram doen our agenda through federal legislature. A pro 2nd bench will be with us much longer than a federal law.

Strategy people, start thinking it.
The fact that our firearms rights are even in question tells me that this is at best a temporary solution. I am starting to fear the only viable long term solution is not bloodless. Gun Control should be just as absurd an idea as outlawing voting Republican. The fact that the former is not worries me that the latter is not far behind.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-26-2016, 2:47 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,213
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Provide some help.

I believe the Feds could help, but this help won't happen unless we provide groundwork to start with.

This means that more than .5 percent of gun owners must get involved in the efforts.

Gun rights are being trampled on both in the West Coast and in the North east and if the rest of the country doesn't step up, our laws will become the national standard.

All of us dodged a bullet because if Hilary won the electoral college, everybody would be hosed.

The issue will come down to time and money, you will either get involved or you will find excuses. Frankly I don't even want to hear the excuses, any gun owner who refuses to fight deserves to lose their guns and the rest of their freedoms.

If someone doesn't beat me to the punch, a game plan will be in progress by the end of the year.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-26-2016, 9:31 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 8,590
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Only if they withhold funding. Otherwise, California says "make me".
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-26-2016, 10:00 AM
Rivers's Avatar
Rivers Rivers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Poway, CA
Posts: 1,200
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Aon2wheels View Post
We need to stack the court first, then ram doen our agenda through federal legislature. A pro 2nd bench will be with us much longer than a federal law.
I agree with the longevity of court decisions compared to the ease of changing legislation, but see no reason why the two approaches can't happen at the same time. The only reason to wait is for a specific court case to hit a newly friendly SCOTUS. Otherwise, like I did already, contact your 2A-friendly Congressional representative (yeah, skip the Senate...) and light a fire under their backsides.

Other than the Safe Handgun Roster, which other laws have the LEO exemptions? Trying to make it as easy as possible for the legislators so they know what their possible legislation would impact.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Basic Pistol Shooting
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-26-2016, 11:09 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,267
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
I believe the Feds could help, but this help won't happen unless we provide groundwork to start with.

This means that more than .5 percent of gun owners must get involved in the efforts.

Gun rights are being trampled on both in the West Coast and in the North east and if the rest of the country doesn't step up, our laws will become the national standard.

All of us dodged a bullet because if Hilary won the electoral college, everybody would be hosed.

The issue will come down to time and money, you will either get involved or you will find excuses. Frankly I don't even want to hear the excuses, any gun owner who refuses to fight deserves to lose their guns and the rest of their freedoms.

If someone doesn't beat me to the punch, a game plan will be in progress by the end of the year.

Nicki
Sounds interesting. PM sent.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-26-2016, 9:28 PM
Hoop's Avatar
Hoop Hoop is offline
Ready fo HILLARY!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn
Posts: 11,563
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

I don't see the feds doing much of anything unless gun owners in CA get off their butts.
__________________

Trump is a joke
Trump isn't actually running
Trump will never win a state
Trump will lose Super Tuesday
Trump will never be the nominee
Trump will destroy the Republican party
Trump will lose to Hillary
---------------------------------<You are here
Trump will never MAGA
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-26-2016, 9:47 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,621
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Browning View Post
Yes, they can. The states have virtually no say on any issues where the feds can't come in and push them around.

This is not in keeping with the vision of the framers, but it is the reality. The oppression of rights by the State wasn't in their vision either.
agreed. but this state enjoys thumbing it's nose at any rights it doesn't like. which is pretty much all of them.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
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 4:19 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.