Can we get a referendum for shall-issue?

[Wernher von Browning]

... or any other 2A topic?

I did some quick searching in the forum for "referendum" but didn't see anything in particular.

This is so obvious, there must be a reason it hasn't been tried yet, but what?

I got the idea from this piece in the NY Times. (May be behind a paywall for you, try searching google news for the headline phrase).

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/builders-pierce-californias-environmental-shield-with-new-weapon-the-ballot.html

I don't know if "environmental law" is a special case. But if not, what's to prevent 2A activists or the NRA in a conservative-leaning county from collecting signatures and putting something like this on a ballot?

Can't this topic get 15% of the people in a given county to put their names on a sheet of signatures?

[readysetgo]

I get about 94 hits in this sub alone.

Here's a good one: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=713867

Basically boils down to lack of money, voter support and the failure of said ref would be an embarrassment and embolden our enemies.

[baggss]

I think a better referendum would be one simply adding the right of the people to own and carry guns and restrict the government from placing any restrictions on the right period, to the CA constitution. That would give us better standing in state court if worded correctly.

Any restrictions, such as barring or allowing open carry, barring or allowing the carry of long guns in specific places could be included in the referendum. Shall issue CCW or Constitutional CCW could be included. This being CA a too Liberal (lack or restrictions of some sort, like background checks) package wouldn't sell, but to restrictive might not either.

It'd be a long shot but if the right people crafted and supported it (and I don't mean politicians) it could get some traction. Who knows?

[ElDub1950]

I don't know if "environmental law" is a special case. But if not, what's to prevent 2A activists or the NRA in a conservative-leaning county from collecting signatures and putting something like this on a ballot?

Can't this topic get 15% of the people in a given county to put their names on a sheet of signatures?

Because most conservative leaning counties are already 'almost' shall issue already. So there's no need for such a thing.

[readysetgo]

Also notice you mention referendum but the article is addressing initiative. Two different things, although administered similarly.

[Milsurp Collector]

Here's why not http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=156804

So, because

1. the public is not on our side
2. the media is against us
3. gun owners are not a powerful bloc
4. ballot measures are extremely expensive
5. the initiative process really doesn't work for 'the people' any more

- that is, because the current conditions are just wrong, trying to get some pro-gun measure on a ballot isn't helpful.

[Dutch3]

The referendum/initiative process seems to be working well for the pot growers in this vicinity. They have established referendums in the past, have two on the ballot today and another initiative looks likely to be on the ballot in November.

They hit the pavement, publicized their position and gathered the signatures in each case. It it likely only a matter of time before they prevail, as they are unified and determined. They aren't giving up.

If only we as gun owners could be as cohesive in thought and action, we could own this state.

[Milsurp Collector]

The referendum/initiative process seems to be working well for the pot growers in this vicinity. They have established referendums in the past, have two on the ballot today and another initiative looks likely to be on the ballot in November.

Pot is popular with California voters. Guns are not.

[Dutch3]

Some more thoughts; CCW issuance discrepancies in different jurisdictions were addressed in the Peruta case by the 9th District. As we all know, the state is appealing/delaying implementation of this ruling. What if this issue were to be presented as an initiative 'to bring California into compliance with Federal rulings?'

And another, the issue of a second 10-day waiting period to purchase a firearm when the purchaser already has registered firearms or meets other defined exemptions. Also declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court. Assembly Member Shannon Grove of Bakersfield fielded a bill in the current session to bring California law into compliance with the Federal ruling.

Her bill was abruptly dismissed in Assembly Public Safety, with Chairman Jones-Sawyer going as far as cutting off Grove's mic as she attempted to speak about the bill. How about fielding an initiative on that issue? You know, to make California law compliant with Federal gun laws.

[Dutch3]

Pot is popular with California voters. Guns are not.

I wouldn't be so sure.

I think the difference is that pot growers are more publicly outspoken and informed than gun owners. How many waterfowl/turkey/deer hunters have no clue as to what is about to come down on their heads? Nearly all of them, I'd guess.

If we don't unify on some common points and advertise that fact, we're done.

[Drivedabizness]

I think a better referendum would be one simply adding the right of the people to own and carry guns and restrict the government from placing any restrictions on the right period, to the CA constitution. That would give us better standing in state court if worded correctly.

Any restrictions, such as barring or allowing open carry, barring or allowing the carry of long guns in specific places could be included in the referendum. Shall issue CCW or Constitutional CCW could be included. This being CA a too Liberal (lack or restrictions of some sort, like background checks) package wouldn't sell, but to restrictive might not either.

It'd be a long shot but if the right people crafted and supported it (and I don't mean politicians) it could get some traction. Who knows?

By law, it must be carefully crafted to only address one issue. BTW - I believe Gavin's "Gunmageddon" ballot initiative touches on many topics - ammo, types of guns, magazines, purchase frequency, etc - and could very likely be vulnerable on that score. (IANAL)

[Milsurp Collector]

Pot is popular with California voters. Guns are not.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Seriously?

Latest polling numbers show California is poised to legalize marijuana come November.

When California voters head to the polls this November, chances look pretty good that a majority will vote “yes” on a measure to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use in the state.

According to the latest polling data from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), 60 percent of likely California voters say they generally favor legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

Just 37 percent of likely California voters say they oppose marijuana legalization.

http://extract.suntimes.com/news/10/153/19993/poll-60-percent-california-voters-support-marijuana-legalization

Gun debate: Californians support more gun control, poll finds

With the country immersed in another heated debate over guns, a new poll finds Californians favor stricter gun control measures here -- even though the Golden State already boasts some of the toughest firearm regulations in the nation.

A vast majority of California voters -- including most Republicans -- support proposals that would require background checks to buy ammunition and prevent people on the government's "no-fly" list from buying guns, the new Field Poll shows.

Fifty-seven percent of voters here believe it's more important to impose greater controls on gun ownership than it is to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, a priority favored by 38 percent.

That's "not on par with what you're seeing nationwide, which is about an even split," said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo.

http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_29374231/gun-debate-californians-support-more-gun-control-poll

60% of Californians support legalizing pot and 57% support (even) more gun control over protecting gun rights..

37% of Californians oppose legalizing pot and 38% think it is more important to protect gun rights than to enact more gun control.

[CitaDeL]

Because most conservative leaning counties are already 'almost' shall issue already. So there's no need for such a thing.

The presence of a government agent acting as a filter on the second amendment or any other discretionary impediment is a plain sign that 'shall issue' exists NO WHERE in the state of California. Your assumption that since it is so very close to shall issue, that you may as well use the term is a defect that undermines real progress for liberty - because you move the standard short of what we are entitled to as a free People.