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
  #241  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:34 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
The only knee jerk reaction here is allowing this bill to pass and then thinking you can squash it in court.
You're cute. You act like anyone but Jerry Brown can stop it.

What are the implications of the common use test? Do you think it would help or hurt the court case to have not many semiatutomatic rifles registered?

Do you like hurting your own self interest or are you just so weirdly mad that it clouds your critical thinking skills?

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:36 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Which will do absolutely nothing except eventually get you arrested.

Unless you are suggesting everybody should do this out of civil disobedience, with the goal of overwhelming the police and the court system.

I suppose you'll tell me that isn't actually a riot.
So you believe what the "assault weapon" owners of New York are doing is inciting a riot?
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:36 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I won't say more regarding the AW registration threat. It annoys me that you (of all people) aren't understanding what I'm implying. I know the rest of the posters are noobs, but you should know better.
I already said i know what you are implying and i disagree with your analogy.

Squash this bill and get RAW's and normal functioning AR's back via the courts.

Why register all these guns for a lawsuit?
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:39 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
You're cute. You act like anyone but Jerry Brown can stop it.

What are the implications of the common use test? Do you think it would help or hurt the court case to have not many semiatutomatic rifles registered?

Do you like hurting your own self interest or are you just so weirdly mad that it clouds your critical thinking skills?

-Gene
When you can show me that you can actually accomplish what you start i will jump back on board. Until then its all talk.

Me cute? LOL look who's talking...
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:40 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
instead of saying "call your reps, demand and end to this type of law making" or flood them with emails.
Demonstrably useless, especially in this term. The only realistic way this is going to get defeated (short of a veto) is by some very fancy footwork in the backroom.

That footwork may involve credible threats at some point, but have to come later in the game *well after the wording has been solidified*.

And i'm as skeptical as you of a veto, but the credible threat may at least still be of use at that stage.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:41 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
So you believe what the "assault weapon" owners of New York are doing is inciting a riot?
I believe it is useless, unless it overwhelms the police and court system.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:42 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Squash this bill
I agree that is ideal. But short of coming up with credible threats, you do not have enough no votes to make a difference.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:43 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Look at all these rioters!!!



They will never be able to get a loan, job, or credit card ever again!

Say it with me now "VISA over freedom. VISA over freedom. VISA over FREEDOM!"
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Last edited by lilro; 02-25-2013 at 5:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:45 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,501
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinestr View Post
You have missed the greater sub text to the on going debates over the years as to how we approach these bills and what we do to try and kill them early through committee and lobbying efforts, and personal meetings with legislators and key figures in the know. Now the only talk seems to be post defeat and what will happen in court.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

The lobbying and political strategizing is by far the preferred method, but the question is what happens if the super majority fails to oblige. With the push coming from the WH and the official DNC strategy including a ban on certain semi-autos, it's not imprudent to consider options further down the road.

SB 249 was killed in committee, but AB 962 went to courts and earned us a PI. We have to take what's available to us.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:47 PM
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 2,290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I need people to think about this statement and not just have a knee jerk reaction.

We need the absolute most new registrations we can possibly get in any way we can get them during a registration window.

Pause and think about why.

-Gene
I would hazard a quess...

That a new registration, vast and immense, would in fact become legal documentation of (AR type) Semi-Auto rifles as in-arguably "in common use."

A.W.D.

eta: Yeah, OK - maybe I'm late
__________________
Quote:
In the end, time and irony always win.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:47 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I agree that is ideal. But short of coming up with credible threats, you do not have enough no votes to make a difference.
You do realize that there are NRA and CRPA lobbyists in Sac Don't YOU?

These bills have not even gotten out of the chute yet. Press the politicians now support gun rights with donations.

If the bill passes you call the Governor for a veto. Making noise at this stage of the game is important. Tie up their staff so much that nothing else gets done in their office.

If all else fails it will go to court, Due diligence along the way is still important.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:48 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Look at all these rioters!!!
I don't see anybody ignoring unconstitutional laws there. You did say that is what will magically change the laws, right? You know, without the courts or legislators being involved?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 02-25-2013 at 5:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:50 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You do realize that there are NRA and CRPA lobbyists in Sac Don't YOU?

These bills have not even gotten out of the chute yet. Press the politicians now support gun rights with donations.

If the bill passes you call the Governor for a veto. Making noise at this stage of the game is important. Tie up their staff so much that nothing else gets done in their office.

If all else fails it will go to court, Due diligence along the way is still important.
All bad bills (including SB374) should be treated this way; I've never suggested otherwise.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:51 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I don't see anybody ignoring unconstitutional laws there. You did say that is what will change the laws, right?
Don't know if you know this, but NYS passed a bill requiring registration of "assault weapons". These people are saying they will not comply.
Quote:
I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I don't care what the President says. I don't care what Congress says. They can never take away your rights of self-defense and self-preservation.
What do you call that?
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Last edited by lilro; 02-25-2013 at 5:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:52 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
All bad bills (including SB374) should be treated this way; I've never suggested otherwise.
The way Gene paraphrased it, its seems like he wants it to pass so he can have fun with it.

I wouldn't mind him saying that if the bill gets close to becoming actual law. Just not at this stage of the game.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:54 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Don't know if you know this, but NYS passed a bill requiring registration of "assault weapons". These people are saying they will not comply. What do you call that?
I call that saying they will not comply, which is very different from not complying with the intent to overwhelm the police and court system.

Unless your threat is credible, what is the point to saying you will not comply? How does an empty threat change the landscape? What pressure does that put on the legislature?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:55 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
The way Gene paraphrased it, its seems like he wants it to pass so he can have fun with it.

I wouldn't mind him saying that if the bill gets close to becoming actual law. Just not at this stage of the game.
Let me be explicit, so there is no further confusion:

1) I am not Gene, nor do I speak for Gene
2) I do not want SB 374 to pass
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:57 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I call that saying they will not comply, which is very different from not complying with the intent to overwhelm the police and court system.

Unless your threat is credible, what is the point to saying you will not comply? How does an empty threat change the landscape? What pressure does that put on the legislature?
The intent is not to overwhelm the police or courts. The intent is to exercise your rights. It is not a threat. We have rights, not privileges. They cannot be signed away by any man.

But if that was the intent, take a look at the liberal's fight with marijuana. They do it anyway. And look at how the state has changed. It went from completely illegal, to medically legal, to possession of less than an oz being a traffic ticket. The liberal methods seem to be the most effective in this state. Take a page from their playbook.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Last edited by lilro; 02-25-2013 at 6:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:58 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,501
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
The way Gene paraphrased it, its seems like he wants it to pass so he can have fun with it.
C'mon. You know better.

Part of pushing the legislators is also opening their eyes to the "unintended consequences" and the battles they'll be facing.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:01 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
C'mon. You know better.

Part of pushing the legislators is also opening their eyes to the "unintended consequences" and the battles they'll be facing.
Do you really think GENE does this stuff??? The lobbyists have fun all day long with legislators and are confusing them just fine right now.

They are certainly not afraid of the CGF threats of law suits yet.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:06 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
But if that was the intent, take a look at the liberal's fight with marijuana. They do it anyway. And look at how the state has changed. It went from completely illegal, to medically legal, to possession of less than an oz being a traffic ticket. The liberal methods seem to be the most effective in this state. Take a page from their playbook.
Good example, but the only way to accomplish that kind of change (in the same way MJ legalization became popularized) is to greatly expand the number of gun owners. Quietly breaking the law (with respect to firearms) doesn't do that.

If if it were that easy, we'd see massive deregulation of all drugs.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:10 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Good example, but the only way to accomplish that kind of change (in the same way MJ legalization became popularized) is to greatly expand the number of gun owners. Quietly breaking the law (with respect to firearms) doesn't do that.

If if it were that easy, we'd see massive deregulation of all drugs.
We don't need more owners, we need to current owners to make people aware that not all gun owners are bad people. That is HOW you expand the number of gun owners. All they see in the media is bad people with guns. Just like with MJ, all the other drugs actually destroy lives and kill people. MJ made people not take baths and dance in a park. There's no good guy that smokes crack and shoots up heroin.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:12 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
we need current owners to make people aware that not all gun owners are bad people.
Great stated goal; just saying that your advice to break the law does not advance that goal.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:12 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
We don't need more owners, we need to current owners to make people aware that not all gun owners are bad people. That is HOW you expand the number of gun owners. All they see in the media is bad people with guns. Just like with MJ, all the other drugs actually destroy lives and kill people. MJ made people not take baths and dance in a park. There's no good guy that smokes crack and shoots up heroin.
UHHH no!! That would have been the LSD.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:15 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,501
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Do you really think GENE does this stuff??? The lobbyists have fun all day long with legislators and are confusing them just fine right now.

They are certainly not afraid of the CGF threats of law suits yet.
It's not so much about who does it, but about having all of this out in the open. Many unfriendlies read these boards.

CGF is not the only game in town. It's the risk/benefit analysis in general that should give the legislators pause.

BTW, I believe we are all on the same page when it comes to order of things: work the legislators first, everything else later. There are many ways to keep pressure on legislators and they are not mutually exclusive.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:15 PM
eeeeman eeeeman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 317
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default Under the Bill Felons will be excempt from registration

HAYNES v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)

Petitioner was charged by information with violating 26 U.S.C. 5851 (part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms used principally by persons engaged in unlawful activities) by knowingly possessing a defined firearm which had not been registered as required by 26 U.S.C. 5841. Section 5841 obligates the possessor of a defined firearm to register the weapon, unless he made it or acquired it by transfer or importation, and the Act's requirements as to transfers, makings and importations "were complied with." Section 5851 declares unlawful the possession of such firearm which has "at any time" been transferred or made in violation of the Act, or which "has not been registered as required by section 5841." Additionally, 5851 provides that "possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such possession to the satisfaction of the jury." Petitioner moved before trial to dismiss the charge, sufficiently asserting that 5851 violated his privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The motion was denied, petitioner pleaded guilty, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Held:

3. A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851. Pp. 95-100.

And by an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court agreed with Haynes that expecting him to register his short barreled shotgun when he was a convicted felon effectively violated his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:22 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
It's not so much about who does it, but about having all of this out in the open. Many unfriendlies read these boards.
Ugh. All the more reason I regret getting sucked into the stupid flamewars in this thread. I should know better but I have a severe flaw in my character.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:42 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
The lobbyists have fun all day long with legislators and are confusing them just fine right now.
What are you talking about?

You do realize that there are at least 45 bills and 2 resos in play at present; if this is what "confusing them just fine" looks like...

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:56 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
What are you talking about?

You do realize that there are at least 45 bills and 2 resos in play at present; if this is what "confusing them just fine" looks like...

-Brandon
I'm implying that posting things here to mask strategic litigation here is not going to confuse the law makers in Sacramento.

I'm also saying that it takes movements like "no on SB249" to help defeat many of these bills.

What i am also saying is that Gene (one man) posting here is not going to be a game changer with all the bills being proposed.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 02-25-2013, 6:59 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
When you can show me that you can actually accomplish what you start i will jump back on board. Until then its all talk.
Because 2200 licensed carriers are no accomplishment and the 1000 to 2000 ARs with bullet buttons bought each day are not accomplishments. Beyond talk, have you gotten any person in California more guns or more rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
I would hazard a quess...

That a new registration, vast and immense, would in fact become legal documentation of (AR type) Semi-Auto rifles as in-arguably "in common use."

A.W.D.

eta: Yeah, OK - maybe I'm late
It's good to know that some people who own guns in California can actually rub neurons together and come up with important conclusions. Often I think I'm working hard for people who don't have the rational judgement necessary to react correctly in a self defense situation...

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:03 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I'm implying that posting things here to mask strategic litigation here is not going to confuse the law makers in Sacramento.

I'm also saying that it takes movements like "no on SB249" to help defeat many of these bills.

What i am also saying is that Gene (one man) posting here is not going to be a game changer with all the bills being proposed.
There's no masking of strategic litigation.

Stop SB 249 wasn't run by lobbyists.

Gene's letter to the Legislature last year became one member's talking points. Mine was in the committee analysis that killed the bill. But hey, what do we know?

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:07 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Because 2200 licensed carriers are no accomplishment and the 1000 to 2000 ARs with bullet buttons bought each day are not accomplishments. Beyond talk, have you gotten any person in California more guns or more rights?


-Gene
Of course the NEWLY elected Sheriff had nothing to do with that

I had an OLL AR before you were even registered on this site. YOU did not invent the mag release/lock.

You are taking credit for things you did not do.

Now with that said i will say you have been very good at talking and you can represent gun owners pretty well. However as you interviewer on KGO radio pointed out, "you are not a gunnie" You concurred and told him you are in fact a "techie"

Perhaps you would connect with gun owners better IF you better understood the culture. Including hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:09 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Perhaps you would connect with gun owners better
Secondary compared with connecting with non-gun owners.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:10 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
There's no masking of strategic litigation.

Stop SB 249 wasn't run by lobbyists.

Gene's letter to the Legislature last year became one member's talking points. Mine was in the committee analysis that killed the bill. But hey, what do we know?

-Brandon
I'm not here to get into with you Brandon. I know how hard you worked on that. I was simply disagreeing with Genes earlier post of wanting everyone to register their rifle if this bill passes. I'm just not ready to do that yet and will do everything i can to prevent this bill from passing.

I simply disagreed with Genes post and once again, feathers fly from all directions from other posters.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:12 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Because 2200 licensed carriers are no accomplishment and the 1000 to 2000 ARs with bullet buttons bought each day are not accomplishments.

-Gene
Oh look, Gene's trying to take credit for Off-list rifles in CA again, what a surprise. Once again, they were already being imported into this state before you had ever heard of them. You got involved through Ben Cannon and helped push back on one specific confiscation. The case that allowed them (Harrott) happened back when you were still giving $30k per year to Dianne Feinstein and pals, you were not involved one bit.

So to sum up: You didn't import the first off list ARs, you didn't design the Prince-50 or the BB, you didn't go to jail over an OLL, and you didn't have a thing to do with Harrott.

Yet now you want to take full credit for every BB rifle in the state? Sad. You are a footnote at best.

As for Sacramento, since you claim it as a victory based on your suit, did you get a binding settlement agreement from them? You know something that would stop them from reversing their policy again whenever they feel like it and revoking all those permits? You know, like when another Sheriff comes in and resets policy. As in exactly what happened to cause these issuances you are trying to take credit for? If not, why did you drop your suit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post

Gene's letter to the Legislature last year became one member's talking points. Mine was in the committee analysis that killed the bill. But hey, what do we know?
I'm sure you guys did more than the two full time lobbyists, by writing letters.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:14 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I'm sure you guys did more than the two full time lobbyists, by writing letters.
You mean the lobbyists that weren't at all cited, the one's who didn't drop off thousands of letters in opposition to the committee, or the ones who didn't get over 35,000 people directly engaged on the issue?

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:17 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
You mean the lobbyists that weren't at all cited, the one's who didn't drop off thousands of letters in opposition to the committee, or the ones who didn't get over 35,000 people directly engaged on the issue?

-Brandon
This is what i would like to see happen with this bill and others. My only case and point. Not to tell others here how fun it would be to register everyones firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:17 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
You mean the lobbyists that weren't at all cited, the one's who didn't drop off thousands of letters in opposition to the committee, or the ones who didn't get over 35,000 people directly engaged on the issue?

-Brandon
Sometimes rushing about trying to grab all the attention you can, and putting your name on as many things as possible, isn't the best strategy. I would not expect you to understand that.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:19 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,796
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Some members need to be reminded that the discussions here are about the issues, not about the personalities.

Stay on topic, please.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

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.


Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 02-25-2013, 7:22 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Sometimes rushing about trying to grab all the attention you can, and putting your name on as many things as possible, isn't the best strategy. I would not expect you to understand that.
I wouldn't expect you to do anything other than carry water.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
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 6:56 PM.




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.