Legal Community Against Violence 17th Anniversary Dinner pictures!!

[kcbrown]

If you were a city politician and Robyn Thomas came to you with a plan for more "reasonable gun laws" and you KNEW that you ran the risk of being sued -and if you were, that the odds were that you'd lose, how would you react to their offer?

If the politician is anti-gun as well then why wouldn't he listen? After all, it's not his money that would be lost. And given his anti-gun constituency, it may even end up looking good for said politician. After all, he did try to do something about guns and got smacked about by those evil gun-toting maniacs.

Of course, if the politician can think of ways to make himself more effective politically with the money in question than by attempting to enact anti-gun ordinances, then he'll rightly pass on the "advice".


Name me one city politician here in California who has lost his political position directly as a result of losing an RKBA lawsuit. Better yet, name me two, because one does not a trend make.

Until politicians actually start losing their positions as a direct consequence of losing these lawsuits, they're going to continue to try to enact anti-gun ordinances, because they don't have anything personal to lose.

[jdberger]

If the politician is anti-gun as well then why wouldn't he listen? After all, it's not his money that would be lost. And given his anti-gun constituency, it may even end up looking good for said politician. After all, he did try to do something about guns and got smacked about by those evil gun-toting maniacs.

Of course, if the politician can think of ways to make himself more effective politically with the money in question than by attempting to enact anti-gun ordinances, then he'll rightly pass on the "advice".


Name me one city politician here in California who has lost his political position directly as a result of losing an RKBA lawsuit. Better yet, name me two, because one does not a trend make.

Until politicians actually start losing their positions as a direct consequence of losing these lawsuits, they're going to continue to try to enact anti-gun ordinances, because they don't have anything personal to lose.

Because most politicians aren't really "anti-gun". Gun prohibition is just an easy way to seem like they're doing more about crime. It's the easiest approach.

Why so frowny, kcbrown? This seems to be a trend with you.

Don't you understand, we're winning.

For goodness sake, we're winning the hearts and minds.

[N6ATF]

Because most politicians aren't really "anti-gun". Gun prohibition is just an easy way to seem like they're doing more about crime. It's the easiest approach.

The easiest approach is to pass victim disarmament laws that increase crime, and claim crime decreased despite all statistical evidence to the contrary...

[kcbrown]

Because most politicians aren't really "anti-gun". Gun prohibition is just an easy way to seem like they're doing more about crime. It's the easiest approach.

Really? The actions of the Oakland city council could have fooled me on that...

If the average person in California really didn't care one way or the other, then whichever group pushes hardest for something would generally win. We've been pushing hardest for quite a long time now, and yet you still have things like AB 962 which prove quite effectively that pushing hard isn't enough.

And yet, our only recourse is through the federal court system. We don't even have enough traction to manage wins in state courts (for the most part).

I consider all that to be prima facie evidence that the average person in California does have an anti-gun leaning, even if it's mild. And that means that most California politicians will certainly have an anti-gun leaning, if only to please their constituency.

Why so frowny, kcbrown? This seems to be a trend with you.

This is why.

Don't you understand, we're winning.

For goodness sake, we're winning the hearts and minds.

Of the people in California? I've seen scant evidence of that, but I'm not exactly the best person to ask about what the average person thinks. I can only go by what I see.

The firearm laws in California are more draconian than most any other place in the U.S. for a reason. It's not just happenstance.

[GrayWolf09]

Who are these two angry-looking douches and what are those awards for?

Edit: Note how the guy in the dark suit is holding his award in relation to his body... perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but it seems a bit suggestive...

They got the pricks of the year award!

[IGOTDIRT4U]

If the politician is anti-gun as well then why wouldn't he listen? After all, it's not his money that would be lost. And given his anti-gun constituency, it may even end up looking good for said politician. After all, he did try to do something about guns and got smacked about by those evil gun-toting maniacs.

Of course, if the politician can think of ways to make himself more effective politically with the money in question than by attempting to enact anti-gun ordinances, then he'll rightly pass on the "advice".


Name me one city politician here in California who has lost his political position directly as a result of losing an RKBA lawsuit. Better yet, name me two, because one does not a trend make.

Until politicians actually start losing their positions as a direct consequence of losing these lawsuits, they're going to continue to try to enact anti-gun ordinances, because they don't have anything personal to lose.

I dunno. I would venture the reality is that politicians go which ever way the wind blows at the moment two of their grey cells collide and a simple thought occurs. In other words, something right in between the thoughts of JDBerger and kcbrown. In short, whatever is expedient.

[kcbrown]

I dunno. I would venture the reality is that politicians go which ever way the wind blows at the moment two of their grey cells collide and a simple thought occurs. In other words, something right in between the thoughts of JDBerger and kcbrown. In short, whatever is expedient.

I expect politicians will follow these simple rules, in order:

1. If there is significant personal gain or loss to be had, he'll act in whichever way he needs to in order to achieve the gain or avoid the loss.
2. When there is no significant personal gain or loss to be had, but there is significant political gain or loss to be had, he'll act in whichever way is likely to net him the greatest political gain, or avoid political loss. Generally this means taking action to please his constituency or to avoid annoying his constituency.
3. When there is no significant consequence of either of the above types, he'll do what he personally prefers.

Which is to say: I expect politicians to act in the most corrupt way possible. They'll "do the right thing" only when there's nothing on the line, and their nature is such that there's a high probability that they won't "do the right thing" even then.

[yellowfin]

It's such a shame to see all those minds completely wasted. I guess I see what Patton was thinking when he'd see a battlefield after his guys would lay waste to thousands of Germans and he'd say it was a shame and he pitied them. That said, of course: "My God have mercy on my enemies, because I sure as hell won't."

[jdberger]

Really? The actions of the Oakland city council could have fooled me on that...

But the actions of the Emeryville City Council wouldn't...

If the average person in California really didn't care one way or the other, then whichever group pushes hardest for something would generally win. We've been pushing hardest for quite a long time now, and yet you still have things like AB 962 which prove quite effectively that pushing hard isn't enough.

And yet, our only recourse is through the federal court system. We don't even have enough traction to manage wins in state courts (for the most part).

I consider all that to be prima facie evidence that the average person in California does have an anti-gun leaning, even if it's mild. And that means that most California politicians will certainly have an anti-gun leaning, if only to please their constituency.

This isn't about the "average Californian". As you alluded to in a follow up post, this is about the average politician - who, for the most part, couldn't care less about gun politics. Most go along because it "looks good". If we can make it look bad, then they'll stay away, no matter what their constituents want.

This is why.

That's the frowny face I was referring to... Try to be an optimist. It's contagious.

Which is to say: I expect politicians to act in the most corrupt way possible. They'll "do the right thing" only when there's nothing on the line, and their nature is such that there's a high probability that they won't "do the right thing" even then.

If their choice is a "feel good law" and constituents angry that the City spent $1MM to defend an unconstitutional (and stupid) law instead of paying their police - what do you think they'll do?

Politicians are rational actors. They aim to be re-elected. We can show them that alliances with LCAV won't accomplish that. We can show them that alliances with us will, or at the very least, if they remain neutral, we won't target them.

The strategy won't work with a Saldana or Don Perata because they're ideologues - but it will work with the folks who don't have any skin in the game.

[kcbrown]

But the actions of the Emeryville City Council wouldn't...

Sort of. They went halfway towards LCAV's side, as I recall (I'm going to have to go look the relevant threads over). Which is to say, we still lost, but we didn't lose completely. But that's just based on my memory, which is famously bad...

This isn't about the "average Californian". As you alluded to in a follow up post, this is about the average politician - who, for the most part, couldn't care less about gun politics. Most go along because it "looks good". If we can make it look bad, then they'll stay away, no matter what their constituents want.

But unless the politician in question has something personal on the line, they'll take whatever action they think will win them the most points (or lose them the least points) with their constituents. So it is about the "average Californian" or, at least, about their average constituent, because that's the audience they're trying to please.

So it then comes down to the question: do they look better by pushing for anti-gun ordinances and getting their butt handed to them in court, with the consequences of not being able to pay for the police and so forth, or do they look better by rejecting anti-gun ordinances just to avoid a lawsuit? The first can easily be spun to make them look like they are proactively trying to please their constituency, because the fact that they get sued isn't their fault, after all. But how do you spin the latter? Saying you're not going to do anything for fear of a lawsuit from the evil gun-toting maniacs makes you look like a coward, right? What mildly anti-gun Californian would vote for such a person?

No, I think the political angle is less straightforward than you appear to believe. But I'm no politician. I just know that they manage to stay in power despite multiple screwups of greater magnitude than losing (badly) a firearms-related lawsuit.


We've seen municipalities lose these lawsuits, sometimes badly. We've seen them eliminate large portions of their police force and other basic services due to their financial state of affairs. But as far as I know, what we haven't seen is any of these politicians who voted for these anti-gun measures actually being thrown out of office because of the consequences of losing said lawsuits. If anything, we've seen them stay in power. If that isn't a direct illustration of the disconnect between action and consequence for them, what is?


Believe me, I very much want these politicians to be hurt badly in the arena of politics by their anti-gun actions, but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that they ever have been, or ever will be.

That's the frowny face I was referring to... Try to be an optimist. It's contagious.

Oh, but I am an optimist: whenever I make a prediction, things usually turn out even worse than I predicted!

Seriously, though, whenever I do turn optimistic, the real world slaps me in the face, hard. It has been completely consistent that way. So I'd rather remain a realist, and celebrate when we actually achieve real RKBA here in California.

If their choice is a "feel good law" and constituents angry that the City spent $1MM to defend an unconstitutional (and stupid) law instead of paying their police - what do you think they'll do?

That depends on how they spin it and whether or not the constituents believe the BS. Californians seem to be willing to believe just about anything. How else have the laws gotten so screwed up around here?

[Ford8N]

Nice collection of smiling fools. Little do the CA taxpayers know how mouch tax money these people have and will waste on pointless and worthless litigation based upon false premises and self-enabling marketing.

The average tax payer is an idiot. Easily swayed by the 30 second sound bite. That's why we have the gun laws we do.

[jdberger]

Sort of. They went halfway towards LCAV's side, as I recall (I'm going to have to go look the relevant threads over). Which is to say, we still lost, but we didn't lose completely. But that's just based on my memory, which is famously bad...

Glass half empty/ half full.....it's a matter of perspective. They eliminated the most onerous portions of the bill, the parts that LCAV had their hopes riding on. They punted on the rest.

Believe me, I very much want these politicians to be hurt badly in the arena of politics by their anti-gun actions, but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that they ever have been, or ever will be.

Are you willing to help make it happen? If so, send me a PM and we'll put you to work. We've lots to do in this State. We need help. We need orators and artists and communicators and nerds and techies....we need lots of folks. C'mon. Join the fight with us. It's fun. It's cathartic, too.

We.
Are.
Winning.

Come help us win more.

[Pig Rifle]

Yes, Robin is not all that bad looking.

Unlike all of you guys though, I had to sit next to her. Better her than Saldana, though!

TBH man, it totally crossed my mind a few times that I could've pied Saldana's unpleasant face from where I was sitting.

DISCLAIMER: I have no intention of assaulting any public official with pastries or baked goods of any kind. Besides, she probably wouldn't get the message anyways and I'm not a guy who wastes pie.

[kcbrown]

Glass half empty/ half full.....it's a matter of perspective. They eliminated the most onerous portions of the bill, the parts that LCAV had their hopes riding on. They punted on the rest.

No, this is not a matter of perspective. The RKBA situation there after the meeting was worse than it was before the meeting. I call that a "loss". Did we lose as much as was possible? No. But it's a loss nonetheless.

By way of comparison, the outcome in McDonald was a clear win: the situation afterwards is better than it was before the ruling was issued.

Are you willing to help make it happen? If so, send me a PM and we'll put you to work.

PM sent. I'm already helping some (trying to, anyway).

[skyadrenaline]

lol, it's not necessary to make fun of their physical appearances.

Let's just keep winning and stay classy.