Gov. Brown is no fool

[SteveH]

Ronald Reagan signed the Brady Bill,

You might want to fact check that one.

[Briancnelson]

If the best defense of Jerry Brown that can be authored is "Ok, so he's owned by the unions (not even disputable on this point, look at the bills he's signed), he's really awful on immigration (ditto), he's not serious about balancing the state budget or cutting spending in any significant way (the last budget debate should clue you in there), but I voted for him because he was possibly just slightly less bad than the Republican candidate on guns (except it turns out he's probably worse, because she'd at least have had to cater a little bit to the gun lobby to get reelected as a Republican)" then you would have to be a nut to vote for him.

Another example of why single issue voting is BAD. Also an example of how single issue voters are constantly duped by politicians.

If you can create some doubt on the opposing candidate on that single issue, you can then create disillusionment and even get some of them to vote for you, no matter how factually unsupported that doubt may be.

So yeah, there are those of us who looked at his whole record, and refused to vote for him, because we knew he was still Governor Moonbeam, the man who said on radio a few years ago that the state's problem was that it didn't have enough welfare programs. And we knew a left wing politician would be beholden to left-wing causes. And our fears are now borne out.

And still those who were duped are spinning and rationalizing it. And he's continuing to play you by signing bills we support that are low priority for his anti-gun friends, while signing the ones they really want, like the registration legislation. And next election cycle, even if we get Wayne LaPierre to run for Governor, there will be the same effort to confuse and spread FUD, so that just enough of us will keep voting for this yahoo to keep him in office, or at least we won't vote for his opponent. Just remember next time. No matter who the Republican is, they will, by the very nature of their constituency, have to listen more closely to you than a Democrat in order to win election. Even if their previous record is just as bad as Brown's. You cannot win by voting for Jerry Brown. And by the way, you should probably vote on their whole record, not just this issue anyway.

There's a great book on this subject of cognitive dissonance, and how true believers will rationalize away contrary facts called "When Prophecy Fails". It really is a brilliant bit of research performed in that book, and very enlightening about precisely this kind of rationalization in a different context. I recommend it to you for your reading list, those of you who voted for Brown.

[taperxz]

You might want to fact check that one.

Your right it was Clinton but, Reagan did endorse the bill. He just wasn't prez any more when it finally made it to the desk

[kf6tac]

Excuse me? How do you figure? Peruta was denied based on the state allowing UOC OUTSIDE THE HOME ALEADY! You can't now take that back!

The court certainly can take it back, unless it specifically stated that UOC was the only possible basis for denying the claim. Judge Gonzales did no such thing in Peruta, and made very clear that she was not reaching the question of the scope of the Second Amendment right at all:

.

(emphasis added)

In essence, the court assumed without deciding that the Second Amendment has some indeterminate scope outside the home, and found that regardless of what that assumed scope is, no violation occurred because UOC was available. Now that UOC is unavailable, she's left the door open for herself to go back and say, "Well, now I'm going to actually decide whether or not the Second Amendment protects the asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public, and I decide that it does not."

[tankarian]

Gov. Brown is no fool

Agreed, he is no fool. Only those who believe Brown is pro gun are.

[taperxz]

The court certainly can take it back, unless it specifically stated that UOC was the only possible basis for denying the claim. Judge Gonzales did no such thing in Peruta, and made very clear that she was not reaching the question of the scope of the Second Amendment right at all:

a loaded handgun in public.

(emphasis added)

In essence, the court assumed without deciding that the Second Amendment has some indeterminate scope outside the home, and found that regardless of what that assumed scope is, no violation occurred because UOC was available. Now that UOC is unavailable, she's left the door open for herself to go back and say, "Well, now I'm going to actually decide whether or not the Second Amendment protects the asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public, and I decide that it does not."

It was already determined that UOC was already an option by law in the state though. This case was purely a loaded concealed carry case. The second amendment right was not addressed as it pertained to Peruta because the state offered him an alternate method of carry a firearm legally. Just not loaded. Now that that is no longer available, the state must offer a way to be able to carry for self defense.

[kblack583]

Agreed, he is no fool. Only those who believe Brown is pro gun are.

Yes!!!!!

[ja308]

I checked out gunowners of cal. for the letter grades of the legislature --- nearly every dem is an F and most Rep. are A rated .

If the legislature were GOP --no bad gun bills would be submitted .
BTW Swarnegger is a disgrace .

[kf6tac]

It was already determined that UOC was already an option by law in the state though. This case was purely a loaded concealed carry case. The second amendment right was not addressed as it pertained to Peruta because the state offered him an alternate method of carry a firearm legally. Just not loaded. Now that that is no longer available, the state must offer a way to be able to carry for self defense.

Or the district court could go back and, since it never addressed the scope of the Second Amendment right in the first instance, decide that the Second Amendment simply doesn't require such a thing at all. It'd be blatantly wrong, and likely to eventually get tossed on appeal, but my point was merely that the court had not, by its own reasoning in Peruta, foreclosed itself from taking this path even in the absence of UOC. If, in the interim, some higher court clearly affirms that the Second Amendment does in fact protect some right to carry for self-defense outside of the home, then Judge Gonzales would probably be trapped by her own reasoning in Peruta in precisely the manner that you've described, but until that link falls into place, there's still an "out" even though UOC is off the table.

[taperxz]

Or the district court could go back and, since it never addressed the scope of the Second Amendment right in the first instance, decide that the Second Amendment simply doesn't require such a thing at all. It'd be blatantly wrong, and likely to eventually get tossed on appeal, but my point was merely that the court had not, by its own reasoning in Peruta, foreclosed itself from taking this path even in the absence of UOC. If, in the interim, some higher court clearly affirms that the Second Amendment does in fact protect some right to carry for self-defense outside of the home, then Judge Gonzales would probably be trapped by her own reasoning in Peruta in precisely the manner that you've described, but until that link falls into place, there's still an "out" even though UOC is off the table.

OK if all your presumptions are correct, Richards will have the impact IMHO.

[epilepticninja]

Really? Keep pointing to a an out of the norm traitor like Arnold to somehow justify a democratic vote. Let me know how that works out down the road.

Want to be honest about it? Then put it in the text of supreme court appointments and make the same argument.

So every Republican has our 2A back? I doubt it. RKBA haters come in all shapes and political party sizes. Though I would agree that the Dem's seem to have more of them, but the Repub's aren't completely guilt free either. It seems like the entire political structure of this state is down on 2A. I don't get it myself.

[ErikTheRed]

Comparing most democrats to most republicans on gun issues is alot like comparing Obama's politics to a pornstar's performance, trying to make the point that they both suck. Well, yeah, I guess they both do, but.....

[wildhawker]

Comparing most democrats to most republicans on gun issues is alot like comparing Obama's politics to a pornstar's performance, trying to make the point that they both suck. Well, yeah, I guess they both do, but.....

[willm952]

Comparing most democrats to most republicans on gun issues is alot like comparing Obama's politics to a pornstar's performance, trying to make the point that they both suck. Well, yeah, I guess they both do, but.....

Agree with your signature completely. He may the Prince but the sheer number of fools does add credible weight. Even a Delta operator can't go it alone against 10,000 unarmed rioters. We need some numbers in our ranks too.

[Jared1981]

Well that's all fine and dandy, but I think I'll continue to listen to those who are really in the know on these issues, and not listen to those, present company included, that only think they know what's up.

I just gave you facts, there is nothing "what's up" as you put it.

What are those in "the know" on these issues telling you? Let me guess, once SCOTUS hears a few more RKBA cases then Sacramento will rush in the repeal of Roberti-Roos, the repeal of the suppressor ban, and the repeal of registration.

But I guess you are right, having been involved in Rhode Island gun issues, and having done groundwork on organizing case law for NRA v Washington (with Gray Peterson) and Fletcher v Haas. I also got knife preemption off the ground in three states, where it is now law. But like you said, I'm definitely not in the know as I've never spent a day with a politician on a campaign or in their own office while shady backroom deals were going on.

California now joins Hawaii, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana's Islands, D.C, and Puerto Rico on long gun registration, no other state has statewide registration of rifles (the one's Roberti-Roos didn't ban) in 2014.

I guess it's all in Moonbeam's plan to help you guys?

Talk about the Stockholm Syndrome.

Lobbying would not hurt, why doesn't someone in the Sacramento Area offer to take some legislators to the range (not the die hard anti's)? It worked well in Rhode Island.

I understand that may take time away from some people who would rather complain to Gene that he hasn't come to "fix" their county regarding carry licenses.