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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-07-2014, 12:22 PM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 465
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default San Francisco 10+Round Magazine Possession Ban Takes Effect Today

Here is an update with important information for anyone who resides in or travels through the bay area. The alert linked below discusses how to comply with the ordinance, what your options are for keeping your magazines, and what you should do if you are approached by law enforcement. The alert also provides a status update on the recent litigation in San Francisco and Sunnyvale challenging the magazine bans.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...property!.aspx


-Clint
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-07-2014, 2:22 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That looks like great advice. Thank you!

And seriously, even if you will never visit San Francisco in your life, the last part of the link is really important for every citizen - and especially those who wish to continue to exercise their RKBA.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-07-2014, 2:29 PM
billmaykafer's Avatar
billmaykafer billmaykafer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: san diego,ca
Posts: 1,274
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

isn't gun runner YEE from san Francisco??
__________________
MOLON LABE
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-07-2014, 3:41 PM
Sutcliffe Sutcliffe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Campbell, CA
Posts: 6,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Ex post Facto

Seriously, we need criminal penalties for lawmakers who partake in these kinds of illegal activity.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-07-2014, 4:33 PM
franklyfresh franklyfresh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 239
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutcliffe View Post
Seriously, we need criminal penalties for lawmakers who partake in these kinds of illegal activity.
i do not understand how this is not blatantly ex post facto law... can someone explain how they plan to get away with this?


not to mention this prevents law abiding citizens from their right to travel freely... where are our privileges and immunities?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-07-2014, 4:46 PM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklyfresh View Post
i do not understand how this is not blatantly ex post facto law... can someone explain how they plan to get away with this?


not to mention this prevents law abiding citizens from their right to travel freely... where are our privileges and immunities?
That's what the lawsuit is about
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-07-2014, 5:02 PM
TireTracks's Avatar
TireTracks TireTracks is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How about getting a law on the books outlawing Toyota's. I seem to remember there were some issues with these cars a few years back that made them a hazard to the people driving them and to everyone else on the road. I think these outlawed cars should have to be out of the state in 30 days and cannot be transferred to other citizens because they would still pose the same risk. So all Toyota owners should forfeit their vehicles and the money they have invested in them. That seems about as fair as this law.
__________________
Don't tread on me!!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-07-2014, 5:20 PM
franklyfresh franklyfresh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 239
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thayne View Post
That's what the lawsuit is about
Wow... Please excuse my ignorance. I did not really realize how much some legislators will completely disregard federal precedence, the constitution of the united states, and the incorporated amendments from the bill of rights.

Of course I know and have seen cases where legislators go against our constitution and try to restrict our rights but I have never seen something this grossly obvious an intrusion on proven rights of citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-07-2014, 7:20 PM
GoZoner's Avatar
GoZoner GoZoner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 633
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonfort View Post
Here is an update with important information for anyone who resides in or travels through the bay area. The alert linked below discusses how to comply with the ordinance, what your options are for keeping your magazines, and what you should do if you are approached by law enforcement. The alert also provides a status update on the recent litigation in San Francisco and Sunnyvale challenging the magazine bans.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...property!.aspx


-Clint
Thank you. Great info.
__________________
- It is no longer Republican vs Democrat; the battle of the 21st century is authoritarian (Rep+Dem) vs libertarian.
- The Republican Tent is Full of Elephant Sh*t
- The Democrat Elixir is Donkey P*ss
- NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-08-2014, 1:29 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,816
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklyfresh View Post
...but I have never seen something this grossly obvious an intrusion on proven rights of citizens.
Welcome to California. You'll soon get used to it - all recent transplants do.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-08-2014, 7:53 AM
tonelar's Avatar
tonelar tonelar is offline
Dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Franpsycho
Posts: 6,031
iTrader: 116 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the link, Clint. Gahd, it's getting tougher n tougher to have any pride in my city.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-08-2014, 8:32 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for the update.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-08-2014, 4:32 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 19,378
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Shouldn't this be null a void thanks to state preemption?
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-08-2014, 4:49 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 562
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklyfresh View Post
i do not understand how this is not blatantly ex post facto law... can someone explain how they plan to get away with this?


not to mention this prevents law abiding citizens from their right to travel freely... where are our privileges and immunities?
Ex post facto is where you get punished in the future for something you did in the past when it was legal. This does not apply here. If you get convicted/fined under this ordinance, you will be punished for something you did (possession) after the law went into effect. To use a simply analogy: it's like making a new drug illegal. It was legal to use, after a certain date it isn't. It would be ex post facto, for example, if they arrested you today for buying the magazine in 1995.

The problems with this law are (i) violation of civil rights without a narrow tailoring of government interests and (ii) de facto government taking of private property without compensation.
__________________
---
As of 10/10 the Governor has 121 bills left on his desk to sign or veto by 10/13.

Last edited by prometa; 04-09-2014 at 2:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-08-2014, 7:27 PM
jrwhitt jrwhitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 311
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Does anyone know how this affects SFO - I believe the Airport has a connection to San Francisco City/County but not sure if this ordinance covers it.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-08-2014, 10:19 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,036
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TireTracks View Post
How about getting a law on the books outlawing Toyota's. I seem to remember there were some issues with these cars a few years back that made them a hazard to the people driving them and to everyone else on the road. I think these outlawed cars should have to be out of the state in 30 days and cannot be transferred to other citizens because they would still pose the same risk. So all Toyota owners should forfeit their vehicles and the money they have invested in them. That seems about as fair as this law.
Indeed, we should ban all reliable autos like Toyotas with the capacity to last up to 500,000 miles (hi capacity) without an engine rebuild and whose components like starters, alternators, power steering, and hydraulic brake units do not wear out. GM will the be the first to sponsor the bill, just like it and Ford "eduacate" reporters and DOT agents on the dangers of Toyotas and Hondas.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-09-2014, 4:35 AM
JM2012 JM2012 is offline
Firearms Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrwhitt View Post
Does anyone know how this affects SFO - I believe the Airport has a connection to San Francisco City/County but not sure if this ordinance covers it.
This ordinance does not apply at the San Francisco Airport. The airport is located in the political and geographic boundaries of unincorporated San Mateo County. Crimes committed at SFO are prosecuted by the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office. The SFPD has primary patrol jurisdiction thru a contract with SFO and an agreement with the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-11-2014, 2:25 AM
dwightlooi dwightlooi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 442
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default If they can do this...

All the immediate annoyances of moving or hiding magazines aside, this raises the very simple questions:-
  • If banning 10+ round magazines is not an infringement of the constitution, then why is a ban on 2+ round magazines an infringement? Based on whose's "opinion" or "definition" is 10 rounds "high capacity" infringing on the "normal" exercising of 2A rights, whereas 2 rounds not "high capacity" and it does? This will in essence make all repeating firearms illegal or at least render them legal to operate only as single shot devices with a 1 round magazine.
  • If they can, without an explicit and conspicuous educational campaign retroactively ban an item that was previously legal? Why not make parking on any street a felony without posting a sign or reaching out and telling people it is?

Last edited by dwightlooi; 04-11-2014 at 2:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-11-2014, 10:27 PM
9M62 9M62 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,367
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

It's San Francisco. The place is nuts.

I say we build a wall around it, let it shake itself into liquefaction and watch the place sink.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-11-2014, 11:06 PM
cjc16 cjc16 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 799
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

F*ckum, I'll do what I please. Civil disobedience.
__________________
Idiocity, That state of the mind which cannot perceive and embrace the data presented to it by the senses.

NRA - Life member
SAF - Life member
GOA - Member
CalgunsFoundation - Supporter
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-12-2014, 7:45 AM
franklyfresh franklyfresh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 239
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prometa View Post
Ex post facto is where you get punished in the future for something you did in the past when it was legal. This does not apply here. If you get convicted/fined under this ordinance, you will be punished for something you did (possession) after the law went into effect. To use a simply analogy: it's like making a new drug illegal. It was legal to use, after a certain date it isn't. It would be ex post facto, for example, if they arrested you today for buying the magazine in 1995.

The problems with this law are (i) violation of civil rights without a narrow tailoring of government interests and (ii) de facto government taking of private property without compensation.
Ahh thank you for the explanation. Makes more sense now. Does eminent domain / just compensation come into play?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-12-2014, 11:13 AM
Advocate's Avatar
Advocate Advocate is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 194
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you for the information. Especially your memorandum. I shared it with my family just in case I am not present, they know what to do. Also I am thankful that I do not live in San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-12-2014, 12:43 PM
ziconceo's Avatar
ziconceo ziconceo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: bay area
Posts: 3,301
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjc16 View Post
F*ckum, I'll do what I please. Civil disobedience.
We need more people like you! seriously!

Sent from my unknown using Tapatalk
__________________
I don't drink or Smoke. I spend my money on gunpowder and gasoline.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-12-2014, 3:09 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
[*]If banning 10+ round magazines is not an infringement of the constitution, then why is a ban on 2+ round magazines an infringement? Based on whose's "opinion" or "definition" is 10 rounds "high capacity" infringing on the "normal" exercising of 2A rights, whereas 2 rounds not "high capacity" and it does?
The courts can and will decide that. Example: New York passed a law that made magazines >7 rounds illegal, but existing magazines were grandfathered in, but they could not be loaded with more than 7 rounds. I don't remember the details (since I'm not in New York, in particular not with guns), but the gist of it is this: A court decided that while the 7-round limit is constitutional, the requirement of loading a larger magazine to only 7 rounds is not.

If gun people continue to act in a fashion that makes the other 90% of the population upset at guns in general and gun people in particular, there could easily be a wide consensus that 2 rounds is a sensible limit. Note that for the purpose of hunting, the limits are already much lower than 10.

Quote:
If they can, without an explicit and conspicuous educational campaign retroactively ban an item that was previously legal? Why not make parking on any street a felony without posting a sign or reaching out and telling people it is?
Laws are public. You can find them at most courthouses and law libraries. Today, with the internet, finding out what the law is is absolutely trivial. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse. It is YOUR duty to inform yourself what the laws are, and follow them.

If, for example, the legislature passed a 2-round mag capacity limit, and that limit held up in court, I would think that any person who reads along at CGN (that includes both of us!) could not claim to have been ignorant, since discussion of such an act would be all over here.

In practice, sweeping changes (like the AWB) tend to go along with wide outreach campaigns. Remember the original AWB (I forgot whether it was 89 or 2000), when all the DMV renewal paperwork had an information leaflet telling you to register your assault weapons?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-12-2014, 3:23 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,816
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
If gun people continue to act in a fashion that makes the other 90% of the population upset at guns in general and gun people in particular, there could easily be a wide consensus that 2 rounds is a sensible limit. Note that for the purpose of hunting, the limits are already much lower than 10.
Replace "gun people" with "gay people" and reconsider how much sense it makes.

The rights are there to protect the minorities. If everything was about the whim of the 90% (for the moment not contesting this highly biased number), you better get ready for localities, cities and states where abortion is banned (90% of local people don't want it,) or sodomy laws are in effect (90% of people don't want it,) or women can't drive (in Saudi Arabia 90% of men don't want it,) etc.

The "don't upset the majority" has become the rallying cry of the left, but only in areas where they have a solid majority. In all other areas it's considered regressive repression by the low evolution voters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
Today, with the internet, finding out what the law is is absolutely trivial. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse. It is YOUR duty to inform yourself what the laws are, and follow them.
For some reason LEO-s are exempt from this trivial requirement even when they are enforcing those laws, not merely abiding by them. It's very strange that they are explicitly allowed to forego THEIR duty to inform themselves, when they even have Internet in every cruiser.

It's either that LEO-s are really stupid, or the "trivial laws" are not all that trivial.

I would reiterate that when it comes to infringement, entrapment and general abuse, by far the best indicator is whether LEO-s are exempt. Things that truly make sense, such as seatbelt laws, helmet laws, not driving under influence, no stealing, no murdering, etc., are all the same for LEO-s and the rest of us. Things that are intentionally used against people, such as magazine capacity limits, feature bans, rosters, knowledge of the law, etc., all exempt LEO-s.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-12-2014, 4:47 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,816
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
Note that for the purpose of hunting, the limits are already much lower than 10.
2A ain't about huntin'.

Note that for the purpose of self defense in urban areas (LEO-s carry for self defense, not for coercion or shooting/hunting) the limits are already much higher than 10. (2A *is* about self defense, per Heller.)
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-12-2014, 8:21 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Replace "gun people" with "gay people" and reconsider how much sense it makes.
It makes perfect sense. For about 30 years (counting for example from the Stonewall riot), gay rights didn't go much of anywhere, and one of the reasons was that gay activists were outrageous and in-your-face. They made enemies. Then cooler heads (for example Lambda Legal) started to prevail, the tenor of the argument changed to "we're just like you, and we just want the same rights everyone else has", and things started to change.

Quote:
The rights are there to protect the minorities. If everything was about the whim of the 90% (for the moment not contesting this highly biased number), you better get ready for localities, cities and states where abortion is banned (90% of local people don't want it,) or sodomy laws are in effect (90% of people don't want it,) or women can't drive (in Saudi Arabia 90% of men don't want it,) etc.
Indeed. And as long as pro-choice activists, gay rights activists, or women in Saudia Arabia go out of their way to piss off the rest of society, their struggle for rights isn't going to go much of anywhere.

I won't engage your LEO bashing.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-12-2014, 8:25 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziconceo View Post
We need more people like you! seriously!
Absolutely. Imagine what would happen if a hundred people get arrested, charged, and convicted in San Francisco, because they willfully and knowingly brought high-capacity magazines, in deliberate defiance of the law?

It would be the best argument that the law is working: "Look, it's catching scumbags". Fabulous public relations campaign.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-12-2014, 8:37 PM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,692
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Silly San Fran.
__________________
“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ―George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-13-2014, 2:05 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,816
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
Indeed. And as long as pro-choice activists, gay rights activists, or women in Saudia Arabia go out of their way to piss off the rest of society, their struggle for rights isn't going to go much of anywhere.
Not true. Our *former* secretary of state went around trying to drum up support for those issues. Are you suggesting she was ineffective? If so, I hope you state your opinion publicly should she decide to run in 2016...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-13-2014, 2:07 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,816
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
I won't engage your LEO bashing.
LEO bashing for assessing the situation without attacking LEO-s at all? I guess you subscribe to the train of thought that anyone disagreeing with the current president is a racist because it couldn't possible be his policies that suck, so it must be the color of his skin?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-13-2014, 11:48 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,272
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
the tenor of the argument changed to "we're just like you, and we just want the same rights everyone else has",
This.

There is a deliberately constructed image of gun ownership as 'other' and it feeds the natural human tendency to fear the 'other'.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-13-2014, 12:39 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,816
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
There is a deliberately constructed image of gun ownership as 'other' and it feeds the natural human tendency to fear the 'other'.
No question that from tactical perspective it is the smart way to go.

The problem is that using a particular tactics is NOT a precondition for existence of a right, and too many on these boards will equate the lack of "desirable tactics" to a cause for denial of the right itself. The right exists independently of the tactics and being "the other."

The real problem is even deeper. Those who control the message in the media are actively preventing us from using softer tactics. They don't want a debate, they want silence. The caricature of a gun owner is only marginally because of what the gun owners do, and much more because there are people who actively want that caricature to exist. Look no further than anchors such as Costas, Walters or Morgan, or any variety of anti gun politicians such as Feinstein.

Now, to put on my , the cycle of caricature -> stereotype -> silencing -> taking the right away appears to be intentional with the last step being the goal. It appears that they feel that completing such a cycle will remove the people who fit the caricature from the society, which will result in monoblock thinking, empathetic and crime free society where the thought control is established through committee deliberations of the "correct people with mass influence."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-13-2014, 5:50 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,647
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Since there were no signs entering San Francisco, i actually drove through the city with hi caps. I made a mistake.

I also heard there was a shooting out in Hunters Point, Rape in the Tenderloin and the accusation of an arms trafficker at the federal building. Some guy that lives in San Francisco named Leland Yee.

I hope they don't come knocking on my door.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-13-2014, 6:34 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Thanks for posting the link.
__________________
•=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-15-2014, 1:45 PM
CombsForce's Avatar
CombsForce CombsForce is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tehachapi Mountains
Posts: 162
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9M62 View Post
It's San Francisco. The place is nuts.

I say we build a wall around it, let it shake itself into liquefaction and watch the place sink.
__________________
"One does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one has to believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights."

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-15-2014, 8:29 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 948
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutcliffe View Post
Seriously, we need criminal penalties for lawmakers who partake in these kinds of illegal activity.
Agreed.

Perhaps a codified system whereby the law maker loses some amount of pay for each offense?
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-25-2014, 4:32 AM
tpc13 tpc13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 524
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

F san Francisco. Who cares the people there are sheep.victims of their own demise.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-25-2014, 8:31 AM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpc13 View Post
F san Francisco. Who cares the people there are sheep.victims of their own demise.
Not all of them. I guess you dont see the bigger picture either...
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-25-2014, 9:55 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpc13 View Post
F san Francisco. Who cares the people there are sheep.victims of their own demise.
Though they may be sheep from our perspective we've still got to engage them.

The problem with ignoring a region that is hostile to enumerated rights, is regardless of how high a wall we build or how much we try to ignore it, the bad ideas and policies still manage to migrate out and impact the rest of the country negatively.

Continued and ramped up aggressive Outreach, exposure and continued education are necessary for us to prevail. Stamping our feet, clicking our heals together with ear plugs in and repeating "shall not be infringed" doesn't suddenly wisk us from OZ back to Kansas.

Unfortunately CA is an OZ full of many bad laws and the corrective path is going to require beating the places we wish we could wall off into shifting their tactics and growing public awareness. There is an awareness shift occurring and public perception is changing. Be it video games, curiosity, court rulings, news coverage and the internet, across a wide swath the opportunities to penetrate the public in these bastions of anti-laws seems to be opening up slowly.

Thank you micheal and assoc for fighting the fight, its frustrating to see the courts not pass an injunction. but in the long run i hope we prevail.

Thats just my humble opinion though
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 04-25-2014 at 9:57 AM..
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 3:27 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.