Deadline looming...

[mrdd]

This is basically the way the federal government works, with one difference. There, the President has 10 days (excepting Sundays) to sign or veto a bill after it is presented to him, otherwise it becomes a law without his signature. Except, if the Congress is adjourned when the 10 days elapses it does not become a law (known as a pocket veto).

The difference is what is messed up about California, because it encourages the legislature to dump most of the bills on the Governor's desk at the end of a session since there is no pocket veto.

[nicki]

My 2 cents.

If these were bills he actually believed in he would have signed them already so he could get good press.

He could just let them become law with no comment, while it makes the bills law, he isn't standing around cheering them.

OTOH, if he waits till Sunday evening, the bills become monday's news.

Weekends tend to be slow on news, weekdays are busy on news so the news worthiness of vetos gun bills would have a low priority.

Nicki

[MolonLabe2008]

With all the people on this board telling us to vote for Jerry Brown because of his "Amicus Brief" and all I would have suspected Jerry Brown to have vetoed all of these bills by now.

Why would it take a "supposedly" pro 2nd-Amendment governor so long to make an obvious decision?

What's up?

Oh! And if you haven't heard by now, our "supposedly" pro 2nd-Amendment governor has signed the "Dream Act" which takes money from hard working law abiding citizens and gives it to non-citizens.

[hoffmang]

Why would it take a "supposedly" pro 2nd-Amendment governor so long to make an obvious decision?

Because it makes no substantive difference upon which day he acts before Midnight Sunday night. Also, he may not wish the top stories to be about his action on gun bills. That cuts neither way, pro or anti civil rights.

-Gene

[stix213]

Is anyone else beginning to sweat bullets about SB 427, SB 819, AB 144 and AB 809. I understand the Gov has till midnight tonight to veto these bills. Is that correct?

bullets being sweated.... thumb printed and registered bullets

Come on JB, don't let us down.

[Bad Voodoo]

With all the people on this board telling us to vote for Jerry Brown...

You mean the "campaigning" being done by Calguns officers as individuals exercising their 1A rights, don't you? Let's hope, considering their affiliation and influence on the voting decisions of many members here, they don't ultimately end up w/ egg on their faces over these bills.

<fingerscrossed>

[stix213]

You mean the "campaigning" being done by Calguns officers as individuals exercising their 1A rights, don't you? Let's hope, considering their affiliation and influence on the voting decisions of many members here, they don't ultimately end up w/ egg on their faces over these bills.

<fingerscrossed>

Its not like Meg was going to rev up the veto pen

[Bad Voodoo]

Its not like Meg was going to rev up the veto pen

Great argument. See, that's the problem w/ lemmings. One runs off the cliff, they all die.

[hoffmang]

You mean the "campaigning" being done by Calguns officers as individuals exercising their 1A rights, don't you? Let's hope, considering their affiliation and influence on the voting decisions of many members here, they don't ultimately end up w/ egg on their faces over these bills.

<fingerscrossed>

I love how your more interested in pre-blaming those working to expand your rights than placing the blame where it is due.

-Gene

[MrClamperSir]

I love how your more interested in pre-blaming those working to expand your rights than placing the blame where it is due.

-Gene

.

[Bad Voodoo]

I love how your more interested in pre-blaming those working to expand your rights than placing the blame where it is due.

-Gene

Blame? No, not yet Gene. Just a bit of acid reflux (and hoping it doesn't turn into a full-blown ulcer after Sunday).

Your effort, as well as those of others (NRA, CRPA, 2AF, et al) are GREATLY appreciated, but let's not forget who's money you're using to expand my rights - more than a few of those dollars are my own.

Simply speaking, count me in the camp of those who think CGF officers shouldn't shall we say, be so overt re: their political opinions. It's a position that keeps you safe in just these kinds of circumstances.

[SupportGeek]

Blame? No, not yet Gene. Just a bit of acid reflux (and hoping it doesn't turn into a full-blown ulcer after Sunday).

Your effort, as well as those of others (NRA, CRPA, 2AF, et al) are GREATLY appreciated, but let's not forget who's money you're using to expand my rights - more than a few of those dollars are my own.

Simply speaking, count me in the camp of those who think CGF officers shouldn't shall we say, be so overt re: their political opinions. It's a position that keeps you safe in just these kinds of circumstances.

So your opinion is that anyone that is looked up to by a group of individuals should not express a political opinion at all?
Should the NRA stop grading politicians too? its the same thing.
I bet your answer is no on that though because we are talking about a liberal candidate that our guys showed to have a better 2a bias than the "supposedly" conservative one.
Had Meg been elected instead of Brown, would you still be singing her praises once she signed these into law the first day they landed on her desk?

[hoffmang]

Simply speaking, count me in the camp of those who think CGF officers shouldn't shall we say, be so overt re: their political opinions. It's a position that keeps you safe in just these kinds of circumstances.

Speaking as a gun owner and not on CGF's behalf, I'm quite confident that today we have a whole lot more hope in the veto pen of Mr. Brown than Mrs. Whitman. Anyone who thinks differently about that hasn't really reflected on Mrs. Whitman.

-Gene

[Bad Voodoo]

Speaking as a gun owner and not on CGF's behalf, I'm quite confident that today we have a whole lot more hope in the veto pen of Mr. Brown than Mrs. Whitman. Anyone who thinks differently about that hasn't really reflected on Mrs. Whitman.

-Gene

I don't disagree, Gene. Having said that, CGF individuals boasted CONFIDENCE during your various campaign(s) that JB would wouldn't hesitate to veto on behalf of 2A rights. That's my recollection, anyway. There's a mile-wide chasm separating the meaning of the word confidence vs hope, the word you're using today. As I said, acid reflux (so far).

As for what I believe... I believe officers of non-profits should tread very carefully where political 'endorsements' and the media platforms at their disposal (like Calguns) from where they can/should 'campaign', are concerned. Some might consider that kind of activity a conflict of interest. I happen to be one of them.

[Connor P Price]

I don't recall anyone in CGF stating that the foundation had an established position or opinion on any candidate at any time. Nor have I ever seen any of them post anything that could be construed as an official statement by them in their capacity as Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or what have you.

While they may have positions within the foundation, they are individuals as well. Any individual should be more than welcome to comment on a candidate who they view as beneficial to our cause. (Or less harmful as the case often is.)