Gov. Brown is no fool

[elSquid]

Brown's amicus brief was not pro-2A, we covered this prior to the election. You were mislead by people who wanted your vote.

If Brown was anti-2nd...

a) he would have submitted an "anti" brief in Heller. CA was notably absent from the usual list of anti gun states.

Brief for New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico in Support of Petitioner

b) he would have submitted an anti-brief in McDonald. He didn't. We got a pro-2nd instead.

For those that say that the content matters: why would he defend the registry but mention Pena, and ask for guidance? Pena shows that the registry is quite visibly flawed...

But content really didn't matter. The core question was: does Heller apply to the states? The CA AG said it did. He could have wrote: "here in CA we have great gun laws, we allow people to own guns, the 2nd shouldn't apply to the states." But he didn't.

You really can't over emphasize the importance of those two cases: they give us the lever to actually challenge bad gun laws. If we lost Heller or McDonald, we'd be in a very, very bad spot.

-- Michael

[30rdMag]

I think if the Gov, signed some stuff knowing that it was going to be tossed out in court. He is winning. He looks good to the Anti guns crowd. And in the end gave us the power to remove even more in the future.

So while it might take a bit, and seem like a set back. I think he did us a favor while still looking good to the Anti crowd. He can't be blamed if the courts strike it down. And it opens new doors for us. He's opening doors for us while looking good for others and letting the court system be the bad guy.

[GWbiker]

Actually most of the gun laws we have in place were either introduced or signed off by a republican.

Yes, and it's been that way since 1923. Haven't you people had enough racially motivated gun control??

[hoffmang]

This is a myth. If UOC was banned when Peruta was argued, the court would have just stated that Heller does not apply outside the home.

You are only partially correct. The law of the case is now that UOC is an acceptable alternate. Oops.

-Gene

[dantodd]

This is a myth. If UOC was banned when Peruta was argued, the court would have just stated that Heller does not apply outside the home.

This notion that UOC prevented a good court ruling on carry is actually more crazy than the rationalization that Brown is pro-RKBA. He didn't do anyone in CA any favors on 2A issues. Long gun registration is a very bad sign of things to come in CA.

First of all, you may well be right, if UOC were outlawed 2 years ago Peruta and Richards may have relied on some other issue, but the judges in those cases chose to hang their hats on UOC and accepted that 2A extends beyond the home. The CA legislature and Gov. just removed their hat rack.

Second, Long Gun Registration is not even the second worst bill that JB signed. You need to seriously re-evaluate your perspective on strategic issues. It's easy to get caught up in the minutiae of laws you "don't like" and miss the laws that might actually cause us harm and difficulty down the road.

[ErikTheRed]

I posted the following comments in a thread a couple of nights ago, but that thread was closed. After reading this thread thus far, I think my comments are an even better fit here-- so heres a copy-n'-paste repost in the interest and importance of my extremely valuable evening spare time......

I don't hate to tell you "I told you so". I didn't buy a single word of any of that "Brown is our friend on 2A issues" garbage that was being spewed by so many on this website. As CalBear pointed out, even Brown's amicus brief clearly defined his position on California's draconian anti-gun lawmaking and he was quite direct in explaining his opinion on our "common sense gun laws leading the Nation". How in the world could anyone read that and possibly believe he's our buddy? He is no more our buddy than any other left-wing anti-Constitution progressive liberal democrat fool, and his support of these bills now PROVES IT beyond any further speculation or hope. His veto of AB 427 included a clear message, one that I think it irresponsible to try and defend as a positive message--- he obviously stated the reason for the veto was only because the current bill it amends is in litigation. He goes on to include a direct hint that we ("we" meaning "us gun-grabbing democrats") need to patiently wait for the results of that litigation before attacking from this angle, but not to worry, we'll have 'dry powder' when the time comes. Any attempt to decipher his message as anything contrary to that is simply wishful, but not intelligent, thinking. Jerry Brown is an anti-gun zealot, no different in frame of mind than the anti-gun zealots who wrote and supported those bills. Any one of us could have (and SHOULD have) seen this coming a long way off, and I'm dissappointed that so many here tried to defend Brown as friendly to our 2nd Amendment rights. He is not, and I hope these decisions lay to rest any further irresponsible justifications for his actions.

Now, all that said, I also understand that our other "choice" in the last election wouldn't have been any better based on what we know of her past statements, but I can't see how she would have been any worse except that she may have signed AB 427 without at least the political smarts to wait for the right time to strike. Brown knew to wait, but that doesn't change the intent, and the intent is to further restrict the Constitutional rights of Californians based on a left-wing anti-gun philosophy where both Brown and Whitman have firmly established their camp. I did the only thing a smart, freedom-loving Californian could have done in the last election and voted for neither one of them, and I made it perfectly clear at the time that it was the ONLY choice. I tried to encourage others to follow suit, but too many of us were too busy gulping down the rancid spoon-fed soup to actually stop and look at the ingredients first.

Lastly, lets not get caught up in the ensuing deluge of inspiration, where Brown's decisions may lead to golden opportunites democrats be damned. Some of his decisions may have opened Pandora's proverbial box, but that DOES NOT excuse Brown for his opinions or decisions. A simple veto would have been a heck of a lot easier, faster, and a lot less expensive than trying to finagle our way out from underneath the mountain of anti-gun crap being constantly poured on our heads by these tyrants, and if he were our friend, he certainly wouldn't have intentionally dumped more crap for us to try and worm out from underneath of. Dumping crap and trying to wear us out is their strategy. Even a tyrant inadvertently leaves open a door from time to time, a door than can be exploited, but that doesn't justify the tyrant slamming shut other doors in an concerted effort to keep us out. Because a cloud may have a silver lining doesn't mean the cloud isn't a cloud. Brown is a progressive anti-gun liberal scumbag and will do us no favors..... and I told you so.

[ErikTheRed]

Affirming that my above comments are absolutely factually true, direct, and undebatable (although certainly some will try, to thier ultimate failure), its extremely necessary to stress that even though Brown is an anti-gun rat who shares a philosophy with the Brady Bunch, he did indeed leave open a door or two. That those doors can and likely will be exploited by some very talented people who desparately need our full, undivided support is equally true, and I do not intend to let the rats run off with our cheese. Ironically, Brown, as dumb as he is progressively liberal, may have set his own trap. (To those who believe he did this with some hidden coded secret-squirrel pro-2A agenda: you are dilusional. Please see an herbologist or an accupuncturist immediately, you are in desparate need of alternative therapy.) Brown is not a chess player. Some who frequent this website, however, are, and although we may not always see things on the same level, these guys are the only calvary we have left. Ride with them, support them, donate to the cause, and lets trap the rats. Easy? No. Doable? I believe so. But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should one rat dropping's worth of credit go to Jerry Moonbeam Brown, for he (and other like-minded anti-gun progressive tyrants) are the reason we are forced to continue to negotiate this seemingly never-ending maze of unconstitutional confusion.

[ccmc]

I can't believe the rationalization that I am reading here. I am even reading it from the leaders of this organization.

Please don't sugar-coat the fact that an enumerated right has been curtailed. Jerry may be playing chess, but it is not for our benefit. He is building his base, again.

The democrat voters on this website are to blame for the loss of more civil rights. We lost civil rights! Jerry Brown is not your friend. He will not take care of you, even if you vote for him again.

Yeah, there are Benedict Arnold republicans (we have two parties in America: the corrupt party and the stupid party; I belong to the stupid party). 99% of dems will vote to curtail 2A everytime. The vast majority of republicans will vote to enhance 2A. Look at all of the republican controlled states and their gun rights. AZ, WY, and WI are some of the most recent examples. Republican controlled states have some of the best economies and lowest unemployment rates. They have excellent roads--I know this personally.

California republicans, as a whole, did not vote for any of these bills.

Democrats are Kalifornia's problem. People who vote democrat are also the problem.

When it comes to RKBA you're pretty much right. Anecdotally there are democrats who support RKBA. but the plural of anecdote is not data, and the data show the vast majority of politicians who are more favorably inclined toward RKBA are republicans. It's not even close. Look at the votes in 2009 in the Senate on the Thune Amendment or the sponsorship or HR 822 now. It's no different in California where the legislature has been controlled by democrats for at least the last 40 years IIRC. So yeah, on RKBA the data is pretty black and white.

[Bhobbs]

You are only partially correct. The law of the case is now that UOC is an acceptable alternate. Oops.

-Gene

What's to keep them from saying that LUCC is an acceptable alternative or something else?

[kblack583]

Don't confuse federal politics with state politics. Outside of California the Republicans are only slightly more capable than the inept Democrats. But it continues to be a race for the bottom.

-Gene

For this argument there isn't a real distinction. Its about trying justify a demo vote which in turn is a vote against our 2A rights. Ineptness of the parties aside, the majority of republicans back our 2A rights and the majority of the Dems don't. Whether state or fed, the same holds true. Voting for our foes and justifying it by pointing at the fringe elements of our friends is sketchy at best and only helps solidify the base of our enemys.

[Jared1981]

You are only partially correct. The law of the case is now that UOC is an acceptable alternate. Oops.

-Gene

Gene,

What I meant was that they would have ruled against carrying anyway. There is no evidence to support anything to the contrary. They simply would have taken the approach that has been taken in MD, MA, and NY, which is that Heller does not apply outside the home.


UOC practices would have stopped at a higher court. UOC did not involve a fully functional firearm as Heller stated, and e checks are a gross violation of the 4th amendment.

[The Shadow]

You do realize that not even New York or New Jersey has the votes to pass long gun registration (New Jersey doesn't register handguns either).

You don't want to go there. I spent time in New York, so I'm well acquainted with New York's gun laws.

The fact of the matter is, yes you can buy a long gun without registration, and when I was there, it was cash and carry. However, I also remember not being able to even touch a handgun unless you had a license to keep, or a license to carry. The license to keep only allowed you to possess a handgun in your home, it didn't allow you to take it to the range. The license to carry was tougher to get. I got neither while I was there and used the indoor range on the Depot to shoot the handgun I unknowingly carried illegally into New York.

I have no clue how bad New York gun laws have become, nor am I inclined to find out. As I understand it, New Jersey gun laws are worse and actually require permission from the local police department before the state will give you a permission slip. To date, that's not the case in California.

[The Shadow]

What's to keep them from saying that LUCC is an acceptable alternative or something else?

Well if the "Heller 5" stay consistent, they will say a locked pistol on your person is not acceptable for self defense, just as they said that a gun with a trigger lock on it in your home is not acceptable self defense.

[Bhobbs]

Well if the "Heller 5" stay consistent, they will say a locked pistol on your person is not acceptable for self defense, just as they said that a gun with a trigger lock on it in your home is not acceptable self defense.

We are not talking about the "Heller 5". We are talking about California courts that said UOC was a legitimate replacement for an LTC. Now that UOC is illegal I predict they will say LUCC or something else is a legitimate means of carry instead of ruling in our favor.

[markm]

We are not talking about the "Heller 5". We are talking about California courts that said UOC was a legitimate replacement for an LTC. Now that UOC is illegal I predict they will say LUCC is a legitimate means of carry instead of ruling in our favor.

Hey Bhobbs,

+1

And, the courts will not create case law that defines LUCC as legal anytime, anywhere (except in sterile areas of gubmint buildings or schools).

So, we will be "allowed to" LUCC to a range or National Forest as a constitutional right, and that is all.

To all Brown supporters:
You are rationalizing and projecting.

markm