Being Gracious Winners.

[dfletcher]

The easiest way for any city to bow out is by asserting that (assuming) since incorporation has been endorsed by SCOTUS and given scarce tax dollars the city in question prudently declines to pursue a case at taxpayer expense.

Tight tax dollars, an interest (even if feigned) in being responsible users of tax dollars and the expectation of losing should, it seems to me, be an easy out for most state and local governments if they are so inclined. Throw in a city or state attorney who offers his expert legal opinion as cover for good measure.

I think minimizing the event - not making it a "do or die, you've lost the big one" situation would help. Allow them to back down gracefully. Angry or upset people rarely make good big decisions.

I wonder if even our idiot mayor and city council would be so cavalier now as they were defending Prop H a few years ago.

[Aegis]

The California legislature and many cities will still try to trample on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens even after incorporation. I could care less if these cities and the state go bankrupt trying to defend these unconstitutional laws. These lawmakers will have a chance to do the right thing. If they choose not to do the right thing, then they will lose in court.

Why should we be gracious to them? We have had to live under these oppressive and unconstitutional laws in CA for years. We should not have to reason with or negotiate with these lawmakers. There is no reasoning with them, because they hate guns and don't have the wisdom, common sense or courage to identify the true causes of crime in this state. Negotiation is a loser for our side.

[bwiese]

Bill, I agree with you that some people will need to have their heads cut off, but at the same time we need to give people the opportunity to quickly do the "right thing".

You're dreaming. Won't happen except in rare instances, esp in metro areas.

Politicians will still act like they're gonna fight and throw out crap we need to fight.

We were actually surprised the Richmond hicap mag ban was shot down without further litigation (and which could still occur if city council gets ants in their pants). But at least the city attorney there has his head screwed on straight.

Our enemies wills still assert that what they are trying is legal - as a stalling tactic. Remember, they get to play with OPM (other peoples' money, meaning your tax dollars).

Kevin DeLeon was even heard on Assembly floor during Ab962 proceedings telling people "this is OK under Heller".

[wash]

How long can they drag things out before they fold without having to pay legal fees?

I'm thinking that might be their strategy to drain our budgets until we can't fight back any more.

[steadyrock]

For the most part I agree completely with Bill and the many others who have reiterated that the fight needs to continue and in the same manner as always, there is something that I think was overlooked in Nicki's original post:

I propose that we gear up and come up with proposals to reduce gun violence in a Post MacDonald, Post Sykes world.

We can turn around and come up with things we need to do to "save the Children".

The opportunity to gut and co-opt our opponent's platform, and turn it around for our own benefit, will be ripe in a post-McDonald and Sykes world. Do not underestimate the court of public opinion as it is the primary vehicle that keeps antigun politicians in office. If "California Gun Owners Against Violence" (or something similar) began a public education campaign on the heels of pending legal victories, sharing the praises of gun ownership and its overall effect of reducing crime, it would be conceivable to sway cultural perception of gun owners in our favor.

This is done all the time in electoral campaigns, and while significant and methodical progress is being made on the legal front a shift in cultural perspective about guns could help fuel the engine tremendously. I guess what I'm trying to say, is this should be a PR war as much as a legal one. The legal and political tactics employed so far are working fine, but the time may be upon us to begin thinking about ways to augment them.

[OHOD]

The thing is, Nicki, they don't want reduced crime. They like having people scared of crime as it gives them political power, mainly through their political alliance with big city police and sheriffs. A populace that's afraid yet can't defend themselves are dependent on them potentially for their very lives. Fear is a politician's favorite tool and no way will they hand that over willingly or admit their use and affinity for it. They like big police department budgets and threatening the public with cutting back on them if they don't fork over more cash. It's a simple trick they've perfected over the years: spend money in the budget on their pet projects which leaves a gap which COULD be taken out of the police budget, then lie and say the police need more money rather than the junk the public would NEVER approve of by itself. (They do the same with the education system and the teachers unions similarly cover for them.) Also, judges and attorneys make big bucks with more crime, and those usually make GREAT supporters who have deep pockets to contribute money and/or run for office themselves.

Crime pays and no way do they want that gravy train to get shut down. No way do they want to admit that and change course, so they're stuck in a corner having to ride the whole thing down in flames. It's a disgusting system they've used and it's about time for them to get their just desserts for it. I honestly don't think their pride or their personal politics--i.e. the years of bull**** they've been making themselves believe--will allow them to separate themselves from the anti gun ideology. As 7x57 points out, it has become a part of them and it would unravel their whole existence. Unlike others, however, I haven't the slightest pity for them to collapse in a froth mouthed heap, twitching and blinking as their mind implodes on itself. They've long deserved ten or twenty times that.

A perfect example is Chicago.

[Glock22Fan]

A perfect example is Chicago.

Don't need to go that far. Just look at how hard Washington D.C. has kicked and squirmed in order to negate Heller. And they didn't even need incorporation for it to definitely apply to them.

[bodger]

Nicki,

Incorporation is just a start, not a destination.

States/cities will still try to defend bogus laws even afterward.

(snip)

The fight doesn't go away, it just changes and shifts gears.

So, how best do we measure our gains? What will be the first freedom we can depend on if we get incorporation?

I live in Los Angeles. Will this city government thumb their nose at any new gun freedon, and continue to make arrests anyway and force us to prove our innocence and set precedents via costly legal defense?

Sorry if this sounds dense, I have no legal training.

[bwiese]

So, how best do we measure our gains? What will be the first freedom we can depend on if we get incorporation?

Dead handgun Roster and progressively better CCW issuance will likely be the first signs.

[kf6tac]

So, how best do we measure our gains? What will be the first freedom we can depend on if we get incorporation?

I live in Los Angeles. Will this city government thumb their nose at any new gun freedon, and continue to make arrests anyway and force us to prove our innocence and set precedents via costly legal defense?

Sorry if this sounds dense, I have no legal training.

Probably for awhile, yes. Just look at abortion -- like it or not, Roe v. Wade (or some variant thereof) has been the law since the 1973. But even now, over 30 years later, barely one election cycle passes where there isn't something on a ballot somewhere that tries to poke at the limits of the abortion right that was recognized in Roe.

Since no single Supreme Court ruling is going to definitively set all the boundaries of RKBA, the anti-gun lobby will constantly be testing the outer limits of anything the Supreme Court says in an effort to find a way to fence things off. That's the way it is with every right in the Bill of Rights, really -- at least the ones that the governments have had an opportunity to test (I'm still waiting for a Third Amendment test case ).

[GuyW]

As tempting as it is to rub our oppnents face in the dirt, I think it would be better long term to give them a way to save face.

I disagree, vehemently.

These b#$%&ds have used every trick in the political book

the power of government

the power of taxation

the power of the bully pulpit and complicit media

to rob us of our freedom,

to unConstitutionally arrest and convict of BS "gun violations", an unknown number of citizens who weren't committing (or intending to commit) any other crimes

they are moral co-conspirators to the mayhem and murder of innumerable law-abiding citizens who were prevented from effectually defending themselves, via their victim disarmament laws.

#$%^ them and the blood-red pony they rode in on.

I'd like to politically attack each and every one of them and end their socialist nanny-government careers.

But really, I just want them to maintain their anti-gun philosphy and be dealt with by violent career criminals....

.

[Cobrafreak]

Us being gracious? I want us to have victory parades in as many cities within CA as humanly possible, especially around the State Capitol. Gun owners have been too quiet for far too long. We are the face of REAL gun owners. Not Thugs and Criminals that are all too often seen on TV and Film. We were TRAMPLED like glass in a china shop during the Clinton Era national ban. Watch the film of the politicians signing it into law. They were smirking and overjoyed at taking our rights away. We need lots of positive public awareness that this is a win for the common people, not the bad guys.

[Rascal]

I really think it is time for the people to put the fear of God back into the government, so they don't start trying to put this incremental rights violations on us anymore. I say show no mercy.

[grammaton76]

How about a childrens' safety thing: "Guns are around now. They're actually going to get more available and more popular in the future - for better or worse - due to this ruling, so we need to start incorporating gun safety training into schools. We teach children how not to have car accidents, but then let them get their firearms safety training from movies?"

[Glock22Fan]

"You might have won a minor victory in court, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to let MY kids go anywhere near those nasty evil cop-killing guns."