Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Gov. Brown is no fool

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • glock7
    Veteran Member
    • Aug 2010
    • 3390

    Originally posted by ivsamhell
    It isn't a board game, there are no finite number of pawns.
    exactly. why sacrifice anything? adding flowers on top of a pile of crap still make it a pile of crap.
    #blackriflesmatter
    <4 years till retirement, can't wait to leave this state
    California, where all of the good stuff is banned, registered, regulated or prohibited, yay.....

    Law abiding firearm owners have no chance in this state.

    Comment

    • Volksgrenadier
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2009
      • 597

      Originally posted by rt66paul
      With the exception that they are LEOs 24/7 - That does not, on it's own merit, mean that they should have the right to own firearms that the normal citizen can not. They do need to have CCW rights anywhere, since they are LEOs 24/7
      I am a citizen 24/7, and as such would very much appreciate CCW rights as well.
      sigpic

      Hunter S. Thompson
      The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales From a Strange Time

      Comment

      • rt66paul
        Member
        • Jul 2010
        • 281

        Originally posted by Sgt Raven
        Maybe you don't know about the 1982 Prop 15, that also cost Tom Bradley the Governorship.

        See here.....http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15220.html
        There were a few other things that were against Bradley with black voters. We have to remember that although he was African American, he was in the LAPD. So, even though he was black, he was a cop first and foremost. Since he made it in the political ranks of the LAPD as well as at city hall, he was going to be against citizens having firearms, as are any other LEO brass in this city and county. They first and foremost want control, taking away guns and/or ammo, or any limitations is what they want.

        Most politicians and members of the legal community (brass), share this view, even if they do not claim it. This is why the record on anti gun legislation is so bad on the Reps watch, because that is what their keepers want.

        Originally posted by Volksgrenadier
        I am a citizen 24/7, and as such would very much appreciate CCW rights as well.
        You are preaching to the choir here, but no matter what, LEOs will have CCWs as long as police carry guns. It just goes with the territory.
        I love California, but I am afraid of its government.

        Those who choose safety over freedom are neither safe or free!
        "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." (Tacitus, Roman historian 55-117 A.D.)

        Comment

        • Jared1981
          Member
          • May 2009
          • 278

          Originally posted by Sgt Raven
          Maybe you don't know about the 1982 Prop 15, that also cost Tom Bradley the Governorship.

          See here.....http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15220.html
          Yes... 30 years ago, it failed miserably. That was ancient history, wayyyyyy back in the day when restaurants had the option to have a smoking section

          I should have clarified... no RKBA restrictions on a state level have ever been passed on a ballot referendum in CA.

          I do recall Maryland having a "saturday night pistol ban" by referendum (58% approval).

          I do recall Colorado having gun show restrictions by ballot referendum.

          I do recall Oregon having gun show restrictions by ballot referendum.

          California is by far the most referendum happy state in the union, and for all the anti-RKBA money, politicians, and rabblerousers, not one restriction has become law by the ballot box.

          Last edited by Jared1981; 10-19-2011, 8:59 PM.

          Comment

          • rt66paul
            Member
            • Jul 2010
            • 281

            Kind of like homosexual marriage? personally, I don't care either way, but the majority spoke. Isn't it great that the courts can save us from ourselves?
            Last edited by rt66paul; 10-20-2011, 8:55 AM.
            I love California, but I am afraid of its government.

            Those who choose safety over freedom are neither safe or free!
            "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." (Tacitus, Roman historian 55-117 A.D.)

            Comment

            • Stonewalker
              Veteran Member
              • Jun 2010
              • 2780

              Originally posted by rt66paul
              Kind of like homosexual marriage? personally, I don't care either way, but the majority spoke. Isn't it great that the courts can save us from ourselves?
              It's not the courts that are saving us from ourselves, it's the constitution. This is a great example of the fact that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. The government is limited by the constitution (that's the idea anyways) and it doesn't matter if a majority of people feel a certain way, you can't violate the constitution. There is a way to change the constitution, this is the proper course of action if the majority of Americans want to allow our government to do something that violates the constitution.
              member: Electronic Frontier Foundation, NRA, CGF

              Deer Hunting Rifles? "Let's get rid of those too" - Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for Senator Leland Yee

              Comment

              • oaklander
                Banned
                • May 2006
                • 11095

                Originally posted by Stonewalker
                It's not the courts that are saving us from ourselves, it's the constitution. This is a great example of the fact that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. The government is limited by the constitution (that's the idea anyways) and it doesn't matter if a majority of people feel a certain way, you can't violate the constitution. There is a way to change the constitution, this is the proper course of action if the majority of Americans want to allow our government to do something that violates the constitution.
                +millions!

                Comment

                • oaklander
                  Banned
                  • May 2006
                  • 11095

                  Originally posted by rt66paul
                  Kind of like homosexual marriage? personally, I don't care either way, but the majority spoke. Isn't it great that the courts can save us from ourselves?
                  I keep telling people this:

                  WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT

                  No elected official operates in a vacuum. Things that are wrong can be sued over. Anyone can run for office.

                  Our system DOES work - it's just that people need to get off the couch.

                  Comment

                  • epilepticninja
                    Veteran Member
                    • Aug 2010
                    • 4166

                    I love this state except for the ridiculous gun laws imposed upon responsible people by...irresponsible people. If we had AZ or UT gun laws, I think the rest of the nation would be empty cause everyone would be here.
                    Former political prisoner who escaped on 9-24-23.

                    Comment

                    • Sgt Raven
                      Veteran Member
                      • Dec 2005
                      • 3799

                      Originally posted by Stonewalker
                      It's not the courts that are saving us from ourselves, it's the constitution. This is a great example of the fact that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. The government is limited by the constitution (that's the idea anyways) and it doesn't matter if a majority of people feel a certain way, you can't violate the constitution. There is a way to change the constitution, this is the proper course of action if the majority of Americans want to allow our government to do something that violates the constitution.
                      How can Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) be constitutional and yet Prop 8 unconstitutional? And the people of California used their proper way to change our Constitution. In saying this, I'm not saying I agree with Prop 8. Just posing the question.
                      sigpic
                      DILLIGAF
                      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
                      "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
                      "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

                      Comment

                      • Zebra
                        Member
                        • Oct 2005
                        • 417

                        Originally posted by Sgt Raven
                        How can Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) be constitutional and yet Prop 8 unconstitutional? And the people of California used their proper way to change our Constitution. In saying this, I'm not saying I agree with Prop 8. Just posing the question.
                        Oh, look... Bunnies!

                        All for giving opiates to the masses. or something like that, uhmm... anything, but this thread got from what to where?

                        Maybe going back to name-calling them "freedom-hatin'-libruls?" - that's always a crowd pleaser...
                        Last edited by Zebra; 10-21-2011, 7:01 PM. Reason: proper spellin'
                        The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments

                        Comment

                        • Jared1981
                          Member
                          • May 2009
                          • 278

                          This thread has definitely evolved. Up next for debate....

                          What is better to carry for a hike in Alaska (grizzly bears) a Wilson Combat in 460 Rowland, a 44 mag, or a SW 500?

                          Comment

                          • smakbiam
                            Junior Member
                            • Oct 2010
                            • 49

                            Originally posted by Jared1981
                            This thread has definitely evolved. Up next for debate....

                            What is better to carry for a hike in Alaska (grizzly bears) a Wilson Combat in 460 Rowland, a 44 mag, or a SW 500?

                            Whatever this guy was carrying.. http://abcnews.go.com/US/zanesville-deputy-killed-charging-bear-shot-feet/story?id=14775964

                            Comment

                            • Gray Peterson
                              Calguns Addict
                              • Jan 2005
                              • 5817

                              Originally posted by Sgt Raven
                              How can Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) be constitutional and yet Prop 8 unconstitutional?
                              Which defense of marriage act are you talking about? The federal one? Proposition 22? Be more specific.

                              Originally posted by Sgt Raven
                              And the people of California used their proper way to change our Constitution. In saying this, I'm not saying I agree with Prop 8. Just posing the question.
                              If California passed at the ballot box via initiative a constitutional amendment stating that handgun possession was to banned to civilians, it would violate the 14th amendment and specifically McDonald, and lawsuits would be immediately filed, probably with a TRO (and a TRO would easily be granted in this particular case given the strength of McDonald).

                              Proper way to amend a state constitution on paper doesn't meet it passes federal constitutional muster. See Reitman v. Mulkey

                              Comment

                              • Stonewalker
                                Veteran Member
                                • Jun 2010
                                • 2780

                                Originally posted by Sgt Raven
                                How can Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) be constitutional and yet Prop 8 unconstitutional? And the people of California used their proper way to change our Constitution. In saying this, I'm not saying I agree with Prop 8. Just posing the question.
                                As Gray said, the states are limited by the Bill of Rights through the 14th amendment. So CA's constitution cannot violate the COTUS. At least, I would think that's how it's supposed to work. Honestly, I don't understand why explicit incorporation is required to have some amendments be enforced against the states. This is been one of my major questions about incorporation since McDonald, maybe somebody could pipe in on that? hmmm Gray???

                                I also don't know enough about the federal DOMA. To me, it seems totally unconstitutional.
                                member: Electronic Frontier Foundation, NRA, CGF

                                Deer Hunting Rifles? "Let's get rid of those too" - Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for Senator Leland Yee

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                UA-8071174-1