District to Take Gun Case to the Supreme Court

[CCWFacts]

The moral and psychological impacts of a favorable Parker decision would be just as important as legal consequences. A good decision would re-energize many gun owners here, and give us a boost. We would be able to say that the Supreme Court has agreed with our views. That has tremendous psychological power and it could translate (maybe) into some legislative momentum for us.

As for ballot initiatives.... those sound like a good idea but they are not practical. Even Arnie was not able to get any of his passed, and they were for some obvious and reasonable things and they had lots of support and money behind them. Unless we had a dozen multi-millionaire backers to pay for the paid signatures, it would not happen. And then we would need $100mil in campaign money. And it still wouldn't happen. The idea of RKBA doesn't have enough mainstream support in this state. That's the facts.

In theory we don't need a RKBA provision because our state constitution incorporates all the federal constitutional rights. In reality our only hope for legal support for RKBA in this state is a favorable Parker ruling.

This is an exciting time!

[BigDogatPlay]

We recalled a sitting Governor one year into his second term from the grassroots without very much money at the start. And he won re-election with something close to 60% of the vote as I recall. Getting it rolling is the key. Gaining popular support through active and aggressive campaigning on talk radio. It's been tried before, so what? Maybe it takes years, but it can be done.

The argument that the state consitution incorporates hasn't won any favorable decisions that count in the state courts and the Ninth regarding RKBA. The rulings have consistently held that there is no RKBA in the state constitution and that Amendment 2 is a collective right. Parker could change the latter but does nothing for the former.

Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions were extremely ill conceived efforts to solve problems, some real and some imagined. They were poorly marketed and were, in essence, too big a bite of pie. That illustrates the key problem with Schwarzenegger... the mandate for change that swept him into office gave him an inflated idea of what the voters were willing to do for him. He did not understand that in a bureaucracy as staggering as the State of California that change is incremental and that while executives can be changed rapidly the underlying bureaucracy can not. And I'm not sure if he has learned that yet,

My fear is that even with a favorable decision in Parker that ultimately the state courts and the Ninth are still going to have room to weasel based on the hackneyed argument that there is no clear RKBA in the state constitution and the bags of precedent already on the book in the circuit affirming that rather glaring ommission as a matter of law.

And after all, considering the weight a clear unambiguous statement in the constitution would bring, it doesn't hurt to work toward it, does it?

Great debate by the way..... thanks for it.

[rocknut]

We recalled a sitting Governor one year into his second term from the grassroots without very much money at the start. And he won re-election with something close to 60% of the vote as I recall. Getting it rolling is the key. Gaining popular support through active and aggressive campaigning on talk radio. It's been tried before, so what? Maybe it takes years, but it can be done.

While that is true, it took Davis destroying the budget surplus and signing all of those stupid energy contracts for him to get the boot. Everybody in the PRK got the shaft due to his actions. Without the same type of radical screw up by the anti-gunners, we don't have the majority support in the state to make such a change. Add to that, the majority of people are likely to see it as a waste of money due to the second ammendment so it will be harder to get financial backing as well. I really like the idea, but I think it will take a sweep in the gun rights movement, in either direction, before it can be done reasonably.

[bwiese]

For those re-advocating a California RKBA constitutional amendment, please re-think it:

(1) It costs on the same order to run a successful ballot campaign in CA as it does running to run for Presidency nationwide. The various gambling, health insurance, etc. ballot proposals have $50Million throw at them to even have a fighting chance.

(2) You get to #1 above if and only if your campaign to get on the ballot is successful and has at least 20% extra signatures above the min. amount (to nullify result of any possible incorrect/invalid signature info).

(3) You get to #2 above if and only if you spend $$$$$ to get on the ballot by using paid signature gatherers at $1 - $3 per signature. Getting signatures of gunnies hanging out at gun ranges and gunshops just won't cut it, as won't gunnies setting up a few informal signup sheets that end up having a high count of invalid/incomplete signatures. You need hundreds of folks in larger counties on a full-time basis dogging people at the supermarket, Home Depot, etc.

(4) Aside from all the above, what if you lose? It makes things worse and falls into Silviera-level stupidity. Don't give up your rights via a media-fed mass stampede against them - better to go the 'precision' route thru legislators and courts where we can exert some control.

[tiki]

better to go the 'precision' route thru legislators and courts where we can exert some control.

Excellent my friend.

[bulgron]

Watch for Ginsburg to pull a few rabbits out of the hat also. Wouldn't it be just delightful if on this issue she turns out to be for Clinton what Earl Warren was to Eisnehower?

Hello. I usually just lurk on this board, so I believe this is my first post here. But the above remark has me curious.

What is it about Ginsburg that has you believing she might vote our way? I'm curious because in the recent past it seems that Ginsburg is very much at odds with the current conservative majority on the court. Plus, I looked up her C.V. and she looks like a big city (notably, New York) lawyer. I haven't noticed the big city lawyer types are generally pro-RKBA, if you know what I mean.

Don't get me wrong: I'm convinced that if there's a shred of intellectual integrity on the court, we will win the Parker appeal (assuming the court takes it up). What's more, in a sane world we'll win that in a unanimous verdict. But I keep looking at the people on the court, and the big city types like Ginsburg and Breyer just don't seem like the kind who will vote pro-individual right, given how much the liberal legal types utterly hate the idea of individuals walking around with firearms.

One other thought: I wonder if it's possible to win the Parker appeal, but still not have the argument settled. If the decision goes 5-4 (as the controversial decisions have been of late), that just gives the Brady Bunch the ability down the road to claim the Parker decision was an aberrant finding, and was purely the result of a radical court put together by George Bush. This argument strengthens if Bush actually finds himself impeached, which many liberals are screaming to have happen.

Or am I all wet on that concern?

Seriously, I don't see the anti-RKBA crowd giving up the collective right argument unless that argument is completely and utterly nuked into oblivion. For that, we need an exceptionally strong and clear ruling by better than 5-4. If we somehow won 9-0 or even 8-1, we can thumb our noses at that tired old lie forever....

Just my two cents.

[stator]

For those re-advocating a California RKBA constitutional amendment, please re-think it:


(3) You get to #2 above if and only if you spend $$$$$ to get on the ballot by using paid signature gatherers at $1 - $3 per signature. Getting signatures of gunnies hanging out at gun ranges and gunshops just won't cut it, as won't gunnies setting up a few informal signup sheets that end up having a high count of invalid/incomplete signatures. You need hundreds of folks in larger counties on a full-time basis dogging people at the supermarket, Home Depot, etc.

Geoff Metcalf missed the required signatures for the "Veto the Governor" by a small amount. I believe the required number of signatures would have been reached if he and his staff would have informed the unpaid signature gathers of the runny tally. Instead, he kept tight control to the detriment of the project.

Many on his staff later formed a non-profit for CA gun rights. They raised some money and then proceed to blow it all on attending the NRA convention (which was held in NV that year, I believe).

These people seem to fade from the spotlight by, I suggest, poor management. What it will take above all is a benevolent leader who puts CA gun owners above his/her self-interest first, then willing contributors from gun owners. I believe Peter Kasler stated this when he burned out trying to lead us without us making any meaningful contributions.

[hoffmang]

Leadership requires more than being out in front.

-Gene

[mblat]

Hello. I usually just lurk on this board, so I believe this is my first post here. But the above remark has me curious.

What is it about Ginsburg that has you believing she might vote our way? I'm curious because in the recent past it seems that Ginsburg is very much at odds with the current conservative majority on the court. Plus, I looked up her C.V. and she looks like a big city (notably, New York) lawyer. I haven't noticed the big city lawyer types are generally pro-RKBA, if you know what I mean.

Don't get me wrong: I'm convinced that if there's a shred of intellectual integrity on the court, we will win the Parker appeal (assuming the court takes it up). What's more, in a sane world we'll win that in a unanimous verdict. But I keep looking at the people on the court, and the big city types like Ginsburg and Breyer just don't seem like the kind who will vote pro-individual right, given how much the liberal legal types utterly hate the idea of individuals walking around with firearms.

One other thought: I wonder if it's possible to win the Parker appeal, but still not have the argument settled. If the decision goes 5-4 (as the controversial decisions have been of late), that just gives the Brady Bunch the ability down the road to claim the Parker decision was an aberrant finding, and was purely the result of a radical court put together by George Bush. This argument strengthens if Bush actually finds himself impeached, which many liberals are screaming to have happen.

Or am I all wet on that concern?

Seriously, I don't see the anti-RKBA crowd giving up the collective right argument unless that argument is completely and utterly nuked into oblivion. For that, we need an exceptionally strong and clear ruling by better than 5-4. If we somehow won 9-0 or even 8-1, we can thumb our noses at that tired old lie forever....

Just my two cents.

There are several reasons to believe that Ginsburg MAY, just may vote our way on 2nd.
1. She does have libertarian streak in her. Over the years she casted few votes for personal freedom, some argue that logical extension of those votes are vote for individual interpretation of 2nd.
2. There was a fairly recent decision by Rehnquist court. While it had nothing to do with gun issue it did name "right to bear arms" in context as individual right. Ginsburg concurred with this decision.

I know it is not very reassuring, but still her vote isn't lost from the start, not like some other votes.

As far as the rest of the stuff. Bush won't get impeached - so we don't have to worry about this.
Gene seems to think that we are going to get 6-3 or even 7-2 decision. I know that Gene isn't all seeing, but his opinions usually worse something, simply because they are well thought out.

[bulgron]

Gene seems to think that we are going to get 6-3 or even 7-2 decision. I know that Gene isn't all seeing, but his opinions usually worse something, simply because they are well thought out.

Please forgive my ignorance, but who is Gene?

[kap]

Please forgive my ignorance, but who is Gene?

Two posts above you ...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=7151

[hoffmang]

Gene seems to think that we are going to get 6-3 or even 7-2 decision. I know that Gene isn't all seeing, but his opinions usually worse something, simply because they are well thought out.

Snicker. My opinions are certainly worse something .

I've never said 7-2. I think 6-3 is the best we can do, but I would somewhat expect 4, 2, 3 for us as I think about it which is almost 6-3.

I posted my analysis here and a summary on my blog:

http://www.hoffmang.com/archives/000716.html#000716

At the end of the day, I'll take any win on this.

-Gene

[bwiese]

Geoff Metcalf missed the required signatures for the "Veto the Governor" by a small amount. I believe the required number of signatures would have been reached if he and his staff would have informed the unpaid signature gathers of the runny tally. Instead, he kept tight control to the detriment of the project.

Yup. So if that apparently more-organized, more popular task failed, imagine the odds on an volunteer RKBA effort.

There is some logic in not divulging the tally as that could result in a slowdown. Salesmen often slow down when they hit quota, unless there's bonus/escalators in their pay structure.

Perhaps the paid signature gatherers (did the Metcalf-driven recall campaign use paid ones?) could have a bonus structure, with the bonus paid *after* certification/validation of signatures showed acceptably low levels of invalid ones.

[CCWFacts]

If the decision goes 5-4 (as the controversial decisions have been of late), that just gives the Brady Bunch the ability down the road to claim the Parker decision was an aberrant finding, and was purely the result of a radical court put together by George Bush.

Or am I all wet on that concern?

I think you're all wet on that concern, but there is a variation of it that is real.

If it's 5-4 I don't think that affects anything. What they could do is take the case and then wriggle out of the issue, or issue a ruling which makes it even murkier. I don't think they'll do that because their job is take up and decide things, not to shirk decisions. But they could.

Seriously, I don't see the anti-RKBA crowd giving up the collective right argument unless that argument is completely and utterly nuked into oblivion. For that, we need an exceptionally strong and clear ruling by better than 5-4. If we somehow won 9-0 or even 8-1, we can thumb our noses at that tired old lie forever....

Brown v. Board of Education was unanimous. Would be nice if we had our own Brown v. Board of Education like that!

[hoffmang]

I think there is an outside chance that this could be unanimous for an individual right.

-Gene