2023 SB 2 Portantino Carry Restrictions: It's back!

[Lanejsl]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2

//
Also, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2, which has links to bill actions and other docs.
//

[DolphinFan]

Just a statement/place holder.
So far he avoids any Text/History/Tradition, and relies on public safety.
He continues to insinuate that schools, parks, places of worship, are sensitive places, in conflict with Bruin II.

[clb]

Time to hit the government emails for your folks in Sacramento

[Paladin]

Thx!

Is there an Urgency Clause? If not, when is the deadline for adding one?

[Usual_Suspect]

"Over the past several years, a wealth of empirical studies have shown that crime is higher when more people carry firearms in public places."

Note the word "empirical", which means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Which means there is no factual proof, it's based on opinion.

[SharedShots]

Of course ,it's back and it will continue to come back over and over until they get it done.

They have all the time in the world. Eventually they will pack enough courts to the point lawsuits won't matter. They've got it figured out, chip away, slowly, every day and every year. Let the status quo play defense.

People who don't carry don't care about where you carry or can't carry. They aren't running around feeling safer because you carry. They don't pay any attention to the choir posting how some CCW holder saved this or that. In everyday life, no one gives a crap about you carrying a gun nor do they care that you think you should be able to carry in place XYZ but can't. It's not on their radar because a CCW is a privilege.

Contrary to what you might think, when someone happens, no one looks around for some CCW holder to rescue them except that is the purpose of all the stories about a CCW holder doing this or that. It's a flawed attempt to portray CCW holders as some adjunct to law enforcement and truth be told, a lot of people probably think there are too many wannbes walking around hoping they get their turn to play hero.

No one cares about the privilege of others if they don't have it also. This warped idea to make it easier to get a CCW is just the status quo securing their own privilege or somehow trying to convince others that they are trying to get the same privilege for everyone else. No one aside from the status quo believes it, no one. Proof? If even a slight majority of people thought much of the CCW privilege then the efforts put forth to restrict them wouldn't go anywhere and wouldn't start in the first place.

It's hard to accept that most Californians don't care about your CCW, how could they not think it's better when you with your CCW are out there protecting the American way of life.

A CCW isn't even a right and it does absolutely nothing to support a right, it's a privilege. It's not what you want it to be, it's what everyone else thinks it is. Other groups get Congress to enact laws to protect their privilege to the point it's unlawful to restrict them but for some reason when it comes to a CCW few people really have it on their radar.

Other groups take privilege and turn it into rights, the status quo takes a right and turns it into a privilege and then round the wagons to tell everyone it's the way it is so keep doing the same thing.

Ask yourself one thing. How many of your rights have been restricted since the status quo orchestrated doing to same thing over and over again and how many rights have been secured and made possible for you, the non-groupie, the non-posse nose rubbing money paying ordinary person to exercise without some one individual deeming you worthy?

Until there is a fundamental shift to addressing the root cause of the infringement and restriction of rights, nothing is going to change, and it will only get worse, not for the status quo but for you the ordinary person just wanting to exercise your rights. More gun owners have never meant more support for the 2nd/A. Have the fact that there are more car owners in California reduced the cost of your privilege to operate a car on the public roads? (registration). No. In fact, it's gone up despite there now being far more car owners than other times in the state's history. But the status quo wants you to believe that more CCW holders somehow equates to rights. Does that even make sense? If it does, welcome to the status quo where rights are reduced to privilege and privileges are restricted at whim. Am I saying not to pursue lawsuits? No and I never have maintained that position. I say that unlike the status quo, that isn't a best solution, it's a stop gap until the next law gets passed. Why is it that the status quo say everyone's best hope is some lawsuit and nothing else will work then they stand in the away and won't support any other type of effort?

There will always be those who celebrate and cheer winning the 3rd lap in a relay race and scream "We Won!" but when the other guys win the race, they say "It won't hold up in court". That is the status quo.

Wait for it, look at what happened in other states. This isn't other states.












.

[Dvrjon]

Hope no one expected more at this point.

1. Low number. That gives it precedence in action for hearings.
2. Statement of Intent Bill. Rather than a Spot Bill which identifies specific areas in Code to amend, this leaves every section of every piece of California Code open to review/change.

The bill can’t be acted upon until 30 days from introduction. At that time it will go through the Senate Rules Committee for assignment to policy and fiscal committees. Senate reconvenes on Jan 4, 2023.

This also gives the Governor and the AG (Portantino screwed up last year; he is now a pawn) time to lobby members of both houses to support. Once commitments (deals) are made, the decision on Urgency Clause incorporation will be made. If they have a solid 2/3 support in both houses, they’ll add the Urgency as soon as possible.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by SharedShots

Am I saying not to pursue lawsuits? No and I never have maintained that position. I say that unlike the status quo, that isn't a best solution, it's a stop gap until the next law gets passed. Why is it that the status quo say everyone's best hope is some lawsuit and nothing else will work then they stand in the away and won't support any other type of effort?

There will always be those who celebrate and cheer winning the 3rd lap in a relay race and scream "We Won!" but when the other guys win the race, they say "It won't hold up in court". That is the status quo.

What is your “best solution”? What is your recommendation for, “…any other type of effort”?

Twenty-five words or less, please.

No reason to clog up the thread for this bill.

Thanks.

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

What is your “best solution”? What is your recommendation for, “…any other type of effort”?

Twenty-five words or less, please.

No reason to clog up the thread for this bill.

Thanks.

[Capybara]

We knew it was coming back. They said it was coming back. They continue to ignore SCOTUS and the Constitution in writing these insane, piece of trash infringements on the law of the land. Gun owners whine, nobody else cares, the tyrants get what they want, we get hosed.

Business as usual in Commifornia.

[Rickybillegas]

In the statement it singles out schools, colleges, places of worship and places of protest or demonstration. It omits 'places of business'. If they keep places of business out of their actual bill, it won't be nearly as bad as the last one SB918.

The places of business, or 'private property' is by far the worst restriction, since that is almost everywhere.

Of course as others have said, this is just a place holder.
I'm hoping after talking to all the new members, Portantino realizes the
places of business thing is a no deal. Here's hoping that is the case.
Since whatever the bill is, it is almost certain to pass and then go through the endless lawsuit/court process. As per NY, we know some judge will put a an injunction, and then another anti-gun will issue a stay pending trial, and then Meanwhile, we will have to live with the bill as approved by state until someday it's ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

[DolphinFan]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

In the statement it singles out schools, colleges, places of worship and places of protest or demonstration. It omits 'places of business'. If they keep places of business out of their actual bill, it won't be nearly as bad as the last one SB918.

The places of business, or 'private property' is by far the worst restriction, since that is almost everywhere.

Of course as others have said, this is just a place holder.
I'm hoping after talking to all the new members, Portantino realizes the
places of business thing is a no deal. Here's hoping that is the case.
Since whatever the bill is, it is almost certain to pass and then go through the endless lawsuit/court process. As per NY, we know some judge will put a an injunction, and then another anti-gun will issue a stay pending trial, and then Meanwhile, we will have to live with the bill as approved by state until someday it's ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Schools and Colleges ON a campus with Secured entry yes, an open campus with public access and public parking areas probably NOT.
Places of Worship? A NO Go, Private Property, NOT public. Separation of Church and State. Up to the private property/business owner.
Protests or demonstrations? Absolutely NOT, a protest/demonstration is just a group asking for redress of a grievance and is protected under the First Amendment.

And there is NO Text/History/Tradition of restrictions of carry in schools, Places of Worship or First Amendment Protests for redress of grievances

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

What is your “best solution”? What is your recommendation for, “…any other type of effort”?

Twenty-five words or less, please.

No reason to clog up the thread for this bill.

Thanks.

I've already put forth solutions. Best? Perhaps not best but since when is there one "best" solution unless it's a lawsuit and with it the endless parade of process? How about better? How about in addition to? You see, it's the black and white of either this or that -so obvious in the reply.

You don't have to read anything I write, simply move on. I consider endless parades of the status quo and the look down talk down you don't understand just as thread clogging.

What you don't like is called thread clogging, except not everyone thinks like you and more and more are starting to see that the endless circle of law passed, lawsuit, process, more process, SCOTUS decision, changed laws, lawsuits, process and more process has gotten exactly what?

What in decades of lawsuits has gotten better in California? Freedom week? Celebrations before the race is won? Every thread is filled with the it's just a few more months.

Why don't you explain the end game besides endless lawsuits that are touted as being the best solution and feel free to use all the words you want. Please explain how all the resources put into them hasn't changed how the people in this state view the 2nd/A and improve their support for it since, ah, 1998?

With all the new gun owners in California over the past few years why isn't there a proportionate increase in support for the 2nd/A? Newsflash, the ordinary person doesn't care about the process, it means nothing to them. This forum means nothing to them either and in fact, doesn't mean alot to almost all gun owners in California. It's a bubble.

I laid out something anyone here could do and was specific about it. That you don't know about it should tell you something. It's not part of the process of the status quo.

If you can't go into that, how about just explaining why this issue has been reduced to fighting for a privilege instead of fighting for a right and why those fighting for the privilege so willingly give up the right and then want others to do the same? Isn't that what this issue is all about - a privilege?







.

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

...Meanwhile, we will have to live with the bill as approved by state until someday it's ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Then California will blithely just go on ignoring SCOTUS as they are now. Rinse and repeat.

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

Meanwhile, we will have to live with the bill as approved by state until someday it's ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Meanwhile?…..Twenty, thirty + years, with no known outcome? And what do you mean by “someday”? My departed father, and a lot of his friends were always waiting for “meanwhile’s and somedays”, but for them, and I suspect many on this forum, never came. SCOTUS had the chance, but didn’t act on it. Now it is effectively too late for many of us.

[FullMetalJacket]

Originally Posted by splithoof

Meanwhile?…..Twenty, thirty + years, with no known outcome? And what do you mean by “someday”? My departed father, and a lot of his friends were always waiting for “meanwhile’s and somedays”, but for them, and I suspect many on this forum, never came. SCOTUS had the chance, but didn’t act on it. Now it is effectively too late for many of us.

They will resist at every step, but progress for our side is now all but inevitable.

I just completed the Livescan process for my CCW with my county (Alameda) sheriff, and I would have thought that impossible 20 years ago. Heller, McDonald, and Bruen have changed the game. And, even if the left has the will to undo them, it will take decades. Look how long it took for any substantial ruling against Roe v. Wade.

I have no illusions. California isn't going to be Constitutional carry any time soon (and probably won't ever be). There are going to be irksome limitations that will take years to strike down. The process may take so long that SCOTUS changes to something less favorable.

But, however slowly, we are winning this.

[N0b0dy]

SB2 contains a lot of the obvious gun grabber research that shows that guns=bad. Since I assume there will be many of us reaching out to their representatives, is there any good compilation of research from reputable organizations that counters some of these insane claims in SB2 (i.e. how road rage or loud music leads to shootings by shooters that in many cases "held permits that allowed them to carry firearms in public").

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by SharedShots

I've already put forth solutions. Best? Perhaps not best but since when is there one "best" solution unless it's a lawsuit and with it the endless parade of process? How about better? How about in addition to? You see, it's the black and white of either this or that -so obvious in the reply.

You don't have to read anything I write, simply move on. I consider endless parades of the status quo and the look down talk down you don't understand just as thread clogging.

What you don't like is called thread clogging, except not everyone thinks like you and more and more are starting to see that the endless circle of law passed, lawsuit, process, more process, SCOTUS decision, changed laws, lawsuits, process and more process has gotten exactly what?

What in decades of lawsuits has gotten better in California? Freedom week? Celebrations before the race is won? Every thread is filled with the it's just a few more months.

Why don't you explain the end game besides endless lawsuits that are touted as being the best solution and feel free to use all the words you want. Please explain how all the resources put into them hasn't changed how the people in this state view the 2nd/A and improve their support for it since, ah, 1998?

With all the new gun owners in California over the past few years why isn't there a proportionate increase in support for the 2nd/A? Newsflash, the ordinary person doesn't care about the process, it means nothing to them. This forum means nothing to them either and in fact, doesn't mean alot to almost all gun owners in California. It's a bubble.

I laid out something anyone here could do and was specific about it. That you don't know about it should tell you something. It's not part of the process of the status quo.

If you can't go into that, how about just explaining why this issue has been reduced to fighting for a privilege instead of fighting for a right and why those fighting for the privilege so willingly give up the right and then want others to do the same? Isn't that what this issue is all about - a privilege?

Well, I was hoping for some wisdom.

My error.

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Well, I was hoping for some wisdom.

My error.

Well, IMO, after reading many of his posts on the whole CCW permit vs “constitutional carry” and the quagmire that we are in, I agree. By allowing government to require “permission” to exercise a constitutional right, that affirmation of the permission requirement can now be extended in any direction, to any right, and only limited by the imagination of the legislators inventing such. I don’t enjoy being pessimistic, but history so far (at least as California is concerned) has proven this out.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Well, I was hoping for some wisdom.

My error.

Hope is not a plan. Before you can see the wisdom in others you must first realize and understand why the status quo that doesn't work, doesn't produce yet uses vast resources constitutes the foundation of your belief system.

Losing becomes a habit and for some a badge of honor. It relies upon the compassion and sympathy for the permanent victim class, something gun owners who support the 2nd/A are slowly becoming.

When you realize that gun owners who support the 2nd/A as more than privilege are a diminishing demographic and that lawsuits against laws only serve to help create more laws you'll have learned.

Why is it that like some others who mimic each other, you'll support the fight over CCWs, knowing that it's a fact that the CCW is a privilege subject to arbitrary feelings on individuals and not throw your support to even finding other solutions? First, accept that the current strategy is flawed and perhaps not the best way or even the way that has the greatest potential for success to insure rights may be exercised and then you'll be in a position to discuss alternatives. Until then, its nothing more than the smiling man who is set in his ways, will never change or learn but pretends to be interested in what others have to say.

Change what your family, friends and neighbors think AND influence them to do more than nod and smile but instead openly speak about the 2nd/A not as it relates not to Muh Guns, some AWB, magazines, the roster and CCWs but rather how without it none of the other rights they have mean anything and that exercising the right and having the right are not the same. The state will not change in a short time but we didn't get to this point in a short time. Its so predictable for people to sit around watching something happen over decades and then marvel at the "We Won" when a court renders a decision. They want the same gratification so long as they must do nothing other than claim support and send money to someone else.

The motto for some should be "I was there, I support the 2nd/A because I sit on my *** and let lawyers deal with it". Things are the way they are because of lawyers who long ago gave up their profession and noble responsibility and instead saw power and money that comes from the pursuit of process.



Let go of the Status Quo!

[chris]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

What is your “best solution”? What is your recommendation for, “…any other type of effort”?

Twenty-five words or less, please.

No reason to clog up the thread for this bill.

Thanks.

He says the same thing over and over again.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by chris

He says the same thing over and over again.

I happened to notice your proud display of badges, shoulder tabs and patches. Since you display it, its fair to ring it up.

Apparently, you learned something along the way. I wonder, how much of what you learned was accomplished by hearing it once and how much was learned by hearing it often as you realized that what you were being told was from those who knew more than you or figured out the same ol way of doing things and failing wasn't the better way or the single best way? Were you taught to accept convention with never ending process or unconventional with potential results even when it meant so many others chided you, smirked as they reveled in their offices and never ventured out on a rainy day because their patent leathers might get water spots?

When push came to shove did you persevere with strategies that resulted in the same result over and over or were you taught to improvise and leave the failed practices behind and instead use unconventional tacts?

Let me ask you how many times you've read "It's unconstitutional" and still read them to this day with the same results? How many times have you read "It won't hold up in the courts!" only to find out it did and even when it didn't the result was still the same? And how many times have you been asked for money but not once questioned what it's paid for in results?

Get real, think back to when you learned what you did, how you were drilled, how some real a-holes kept telling you the same thing and how some of those things came to be the most truthful you ever heard and saved your bacon more than once - unless you were part of the HQ team in Bad Toltz who never wore anything but starched camos (you know exactly what I'm talking about).

So reach back and think about conventional vs unconventional and were you part of the straight legged status quo or did you take a different path?

Not 1 in thousands that might read this forum could even dream to be were you've been but tell me, where was that, some lock step accomplish little but ask for so much or was it the effort of the few doing so much for so many?

Those opposing the 2nd/A in California are going to keep getting laws passed and they will secure their sensitive spaces/places? Why? Because they go at it over and over and over again. They understand no defense can overcome an offense when the defense keeps doing the same thing over and over again. You learned about that, didn't you?

Were you taught to respect the intelligence and dedication of your adversaries and thus overcome them or were you taught to joke about their feigned stupidity, laugh at their incompetence and ineptness while they succeeded? Do tell, tell us all.

Too bad the status quo is the easy way now. Reach back and think about the messages you read and which ones look toward a goal worthy of extreme effort and which ones exist merely as process because the process itself is enjoyable. Reach back and can you remember when saying hope was a plan would have earned you more than a look is disdain and pity.

Yeah, you know exactly what I'm talking about.



.

[mk2dave]

Ladies, ladies... Lets not get sidetracked and derail the thread.

Issues with SS's points are well known, as is SS's steadfast commitment to them. Nothing will be accomplished in this thread WHICH IS ABOUT SB2. Let's try and keep the focus on point.

If this vigorous debate must continue, and it could very well be worth having, it calls for either a new thread or perhaps most appropriately DMs.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by mk2dave

Ladies, ladies... Lets not get sidetracked and derail the thread.

Issues with SS's points are well known, as is SS's steadfast commitment to them. Nothing will be accomplished in this thread WHICH IS ABOUT SB2. Let's try and keep the focus on point.

If this vigorous debate must continue, and it could very well be worth having, it calls for either a new thread or perhaps most appropriately DMs.

Well, here are some of the possibilities going forward;

1. SB2 will wind through the Ca. legislature as before and with a lot of new
members, it will be sifted through and refined to see what they think
they can get away with before a court knocks them down. It's possible
some of the more moderate new members will object to the worst
restrictive aspects (private businesses) and the final bill will exclude
that.

2. SB2 will go forward in all it's horrendous glory with all the previous
restrictions but not enough votes to pass urgency. then scheduled to
become law in January 2024. By that time, perhaps courts in N.Y. will
rule against 'sensitive places' in extreme and the bill can be amended
to reflect that.

3. SB2 goes forward in all it's horrendous glory and passes urgency and we
can only hope an immediate lawsuit and injunction results.

4. SB2 goes forward in all it's horrendous glory, the CA. courts allow it to
proceed indefinitely until some day it arrives and SCOTUS and until then
we're all up the creek and can only carry in our person in our car (with
restrictions of course).

[mk2dave]

My money is on outcome 2 or 3, although some may argue that's optimistic.

Of course, constitutional carry everywhere is the correct answer, but we live where we live, and reality doesn't care what should be. So what can we do to shape our realistic future?

Our best way forward that I see is to identify swing and light blue state senators and target them for influence. Letters, calls, meetings. Words of affirmation to light red senators are also called for.

We cannot rely on the courts, its too reactive and takes too long. Taking time with dark blue politicians are a waste of effort, they will not be converted.

If anyone sees a better way, please let us know. My idea is a starting point, but I believe there is room for improvement.

I also don't have the knowledge to identify the light blue. My senator, Henry Stern (D-27), has nothing firearms related on his website that I have found so far. So he might make the contact list. If someone has a list of bullet points that can push the most relevant issues, that would be helpful. And I question if Constitutionality should be on the list. Although true, I question if that line is effective.

[N0b0dy]

I would put constitutionality on the list at least to some degree. When Trump rambled about "suspending" the constitution, every Democrat threw a hissy fit. Yet here we are with our legislators actively ignoring what's written in the constitution - that does not seem to be a problem for them.

[Rickybillegas]

The shame of it is, is that if this bill passes the way Bonta wants it, we will be much worse off than pre-Bruen. Before Bruen, our Ca. politicians were more inclined to let things lie because they could play their favoritism games and greatly limit who got CCW permits. It was by and large a 'good 'ol boys' buddy system. Then they realized that a number of counties were granting liberally and letting common peasants get their CCW's.
That irritated them, and thus SB918 was born last January.

Then Bruen came and as great a victory as it was broadly speaking, it infuriated our Ca. politicians and they doubled down on punishing law abiding citizens and seek to render a CCW worthless.

I agree our best recourse is to contact and urge as many moderate Senators and Assembly people as we can and urge them to be reasonable.

[Lanejsl]

It's possible that the NY case gets a hearing in the 2nd circuit and affirms NY's unconstitutional law on appeal, and SCOTUS intervenes before they are done in October.

That would likely be the end of California's efforts.

[mk2dave]

Originally Posted by N0b0dy

I would put constitutionality on the list at least to some degree. When Trump rambled about "suspending" the constitution, every Democrat threw a hissy fit. Yet here we are with our legislators actively ignoring what's written in the constitution - that does not seem to be a problem for them.

That's the rub, I think their dedication to the Constitution is, I'll be generous, is less than 100%. That is to say, when it's convenient.

So making the claim that SB2 is unconstitutional, while true, won't win any of them over. You could make the claim that no argument would be successful, and you may be right.

Perhaps it's just a numbers game; no rationale needed.

For clarity: I think the constitutionality argument is 100% legitimate and warranted. The point I was presenting was that explaining this to politicians who are actively trying to take away constitutional rights might not be time well spent.

[TruOil]

The Constitutional point is well taken. All of the "findings" included that will be the preface and "findings of fact" needed to support the legislation are nothing more than a patent attempt to balance security against the right of the People, as confirmed in Bruen, to carry arms in public for self-defense. The point that Portantino elides is that this proposal (undoubtedly courtesy of Bloomberg et al) is far more restricive that the concealed carry law that is currently in effect. If the current law is so bad, why was it never amended before Bruen struck down the principal bar to carrying firearms in public, "good cause"? Why is the current training requirement inadequate? Where is the evidence of the serious danger presented by licensed concealed carry permitees? Is it the same (total absence) of evidence used to justify banning CCWs on school campuses?

What the Legislature should, but will refuse, to understand is that the new law will be judged under a constitutional standard that does not contain a balancing test, and all of the propaganda contained in the preface will not save the bill. The old rules of giving deference to legislative findings is entirely inapplicable, and the findings therefore irrelevant to the legal analysis.

[Jimi Jah]

With no controlling Federal legal authority here, Excremento can do what they want. It would take a lot more than this law to trigger a SC review, which would be ignored here anyway.

[homelessdude]

The Ca. Rifle and Pistol Assoc. monthly magazine for it's members has several very good articles on statistics, both the gov. wrong conclusions and the correct numbers with sources included. It is well worth reading. Of course some of you would have to get off your *ss, stop complaining and spend a few dollars to become a member.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

The Ca. Rifle and Pistol Assoc. monthly magazine for it's members has several very good articles on statistics, both the gov. wrong conclusions and the correct numbers with sources included. It is well worth reading. Of course some of you would have to get off your *ss, stop complaining and spend a few dollars to become a member.

More from the status quo. What are you going to say when as it will, this mess becomes law, this year, next year or the year after? I know - "it's unconstitutional!"

There are 1,299,602 posts in this sub forum, figured it out yet?

Lawsuits are the result of failure, failure to prepare, failure to plan, failure to act BEFORE something happens. I don't have a problem with lawsuits but unlike the status quo, I don't see them as the only solution, the best solution but rather the last gasp - which is exactly what they are. Apparently, you are fine with that. Good for you.

Articles, statistics and gov wrong conclusions and correct numbers. What are you going on about?

You are living in an echo chamber; there have been about 400,000 new gun owners in California over the past couple-3 years. Where are they? Are you reaching them?

In many other states that would be 400,000 people who having the means could carry their gun for SD. In California, it's 400,000 who evaporated, put a gun into a drawer, lockbox or just put away in a box. They aren't engaged. They sure as hell aren't here now are they? Whatever it is you think is doing something is a complete failure by any measure.

Get off the choir pew, the hymn is getting used up and fewer and fewer people are listening. Fewer, not more people in proportion to new gun owners are caring one iota about your speculations, deep dives into what judge might or might not do, the endless strategy discussions that serve no purpose other than entertainment (which is fine but say it like it is - it's entertainment).

The roughly 200,000 people who had their info exposed in the data leak can't figure out how to become a force with a very loud voice? Nah, sit back and file some claim - good luck proving damages- the class actions took a dumpster dive. Then post up and ask everyone else to hold the water bag to send emails. Friends in need are friends indeed.

The status quo; more and more people are figuring it out. But carry on, do as you've been doing for years and years without being able to find a single plaintiff in all of California to do more than stir up another go-around for speculations.

The upcoming decision by Benetiz isn't a California anything, it's riding coat-tails and will be followed by yet more gun control laws.






.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by SharedShots

failure to act BEFORE something happens

And you have been doing, what?

Where are they? Are you reaching them?

Are you?

[SharedShots]

You asked so (as do others who then complain when answered) so this one's on you. And watch how the status quo says something about clogging up the thread. Well buddy, thats on you. Don't sit there asking questions and then complain when you get replies.

You could have, just as others could have, asked in PM but instead asked here. So you get answered here. Figure it out.

Originally Posted by curtisfong

And you have been doing, what?

Are you?

"Where are they? Are you reaching them?" my question which instead of answering you simply asked another question.

I've already been very specific about that, posted it but what I don't do is get out a silver spoon and feed that information to those that can't be bothered to look up things, as is so common.

Why yes I am, slowly (because it takes times and resources), several at a time (now over a hundred) which is more than can be said of those that seem to ask that question and so typically sit around and click on some donation link once in a while and claim they actually did something. Eventually those will be a small voting bloc. That means something, they create influence. Thats far more than the "it's unconstitutional crowd" who bever get passed that but always question others. Too bad you can't see it because if more people did it then we might not have all these gun control laws and people crying all the time over them - for decades.

I don't list certificates, memberships and all that trying to impress everyone else. I'm a member of several 2/A Supporting organizations, some for many decades and donate often, so what? Since the early 1970s, one before that for those who always claim "I was there" but never can say where that was. No one has to even move their *** off the couch to donate but yet they claim they do something. I've donated to the NRA since 1969 and that was from saved up money since the NRA hosted an event at a local school. I didn't even have a gun then, I had an old Diana Model 23 air rifle but they let me in and became a member. I had next to nothing but gave all the same. Who cares? Anyone can donate and be a member of something. Those who boast about donating are like limo liberals, always eager to self promote and ask of others.

I get it, like is so common, sit in the choir pew, say the same things everyone else says and you can do that 10,000 time and all is good. No one ever gets tired of the same "That's unconstitutional" or - - - "Somebody should", "some organization should", "it won't hold up in court"

Newsflash, what doesn't hold up in court comes back as new laws, sometimes 2 or more for 1. I'm really starting to wonder how many of the small same ol status quo actually love losing just so it goes on and on.

BTW, what happened to badge and patch man? Thin air.



.

[curtisfong]

You're all talk.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

You're all talk.

I can’t see SS posts because I logged in before reading this thread and SS is one of many people on my Ignore List. (Try it. It makes life easier snd more pleasant.)

But they remind me of something “Billy Jack” used to say: they confuse posting with doing something productive.

Wise words, those….

[curtisfong]

SS says a lot of things that are true. What I dislike are his vague claims that he is doing more for the fight than anyone else. I have yet to see what, exactly, those things are.

[mk2dave]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I can’t see SS posts because I logged in before reading this thread and SS is one of many people on my Ignore List. (Try it. It makes life easier snd more pleasant.)

But they remind me of something “Billy Jack” used to say: they confuse posting with doing something productive.

Wise words, those….

I second the judicious use of the Ignore list.

Since we are talking about who puts up more than just letters in a forum, can we get reports about your state senators? I'd like to get a list of light blue/red going, then we can figure out the best way to address them.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I can’t see SS posts because I logged in before reading this thread and SS is one of many people on my Ignore List. (Try it. It makes life easier snd more pleasant.)

But they remind me of something “Billy Jack” used to say: they confuse posting with doing something productive.

Wise words, those….

You keep saying that. Who in their right mind posts about someone they have on ignore?

You know that people who say that kind of thing are on forums all over? Then the groupies all chime in to post in kind. Same people then scream about staying on topic yet they are some if the biggest divergent posters on the forum.

If you put someone on ignore then why not follow through?

Welcome to the status quo.