12020 (a)(2) and Top Shot

[GOEX FFF]

The weather in season 2 didn't look like SoCal either... possibly NoCal or Oregon...

Santa Clarita??? There was SNOW on the hilltops in season 2...

Although we did get that really cold storm early last winter; I guess that took a bit of getting used to on the firing line!

Seasons 1-4 have all been taped in SoCal.

We shot season 2 during the months of Oct-Nov. with rain/fog and cold almost the whole time of production.
Yep, during season 2 and the Humvee skeet challenge, was when we had a good snow dusting on the hills right above us.

This pic was taken the day of the challenge when we got the snow.
The basin of the ranch is already at 2500'. The hills are another 1000+.

[a1c]

So, putting aside your assertion that demanding equal protection under the law is "whining."

You are twisting my words and you probably know it.

I'm for equal protection. But entertainment exemptions are a whole different game.

Do you think CA would kick out all TV and movie production that involves firearms if they had to treat them equal under the law, or would they repeal the laws and let everyone possess the weapons per BATFE rules?

No, and I never argued that point. This is moot and completely irrelevant.

Entertainment productions have to follow a whole slew of federal regulations when using firearms. Which we don't have to, for instance.

What I'm saying is that invoking equal protection here is irrelevant. It doesn't apply. Firearms are used in the entertainment industry for entertainment purposes. When using our firearms, we are using them for self defense, leisure, sporting, hunting purposes. Not to produce a show or a movie.

You will be far better off invoking the equal protection clause when talking about police officers or guards, or the disparity between counties regarding issuance of LTCs, etc. But bringing it up when it comes to Hollywood doesn't make any sense.

[erik_26]

I understand the 'it's not fair they have, and we have not'.

But, on the same token.... You can within 6 hours or less of driving from anywhere in the state, leave and enter a free state where less restrictions exist.

So you are not full oppressed, you just have to leave the state of California for Oregon, Nevada or Arizona.

[G60]

But, on the same token.... You can within 6 hours or less of driving from anywhere in the state, leave and enter a free state where less restrictions exist.

So you are not full oppressed, you just have to leave the state of California for Oregon, Nevada or Arizona.

You didn't happen to be Chicago's counsel during Ezell, did you?

[Crom]

I understand the 'it's not fair they have, and we have not'.

But, on the same token.... You can within 6 hours or less of driving from anywhere in the state, leave and enter a free state where less restrictions exist.

So you are not full oppressed, you just have to leave the state of California for Oregon, Nevada or Arizona.

Hilarious! That is the same faulty logic Justice Breyer used in Heller.

"Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem [with the D.C. handgun ban], I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."

-Quote

[dantodd]

You are twisting my words and you probably know it.

I'm for equal protection. But entertainment exemptions are a whole different game.

You are simply wrong on this issue. Entertainment exemptions are not a "whole different game." If we are talking about "unusual" weapons, or NFA regulated weapons, or (as in your example) actions that would be a public hazard then you are right.

We are talking about regular weapons and accessories that are completely legal in 40-something states, some with a federal tax. The use of those weapons by one class of person while their use is denied another is EXACTLY what equal protection is about.

And no, I don't think that I am twisting your words at all when I say that you call me wanting equal protection under the law "whining." If you were referring to something other than the request to be treated the same as a movie production please let me know what it was so I can apologize. Otherwise I am kinda stuck on reading your post as written. I realize you think it is not actually equal protection. I have noticed that such arguments typically come from people who are part of or involved with the favored class. Are you part of the entertainment industry?

To make it perfectly clear, I have no issue with Top Shot or any other production using firearms and the exemptions provided in law. My problem is that the law should not have exemptions for certain classes to exercise fundamental rights when the rest of us are denied. The law should apply equally. If the state chooses to restrict access to certain weapons they should pay the price for that choice. In this case they should lose the revenue of TV/movie productions that include guns.

[erik_26]

Hilarious! That is the same faulty logic Justice Breyer used in Heller.

-Quote

It is not meant to be funny.


It is the current truth.


Do I like our situation, NO! Do I agree with the laws, NO! It is what it is for now.


Please don't take what I said as advocating the current over bearing laws we have.


Just pointing out options.

[jmzhwells]

I thought they mentioned they were in Wyoming this year, on the first episode.

[dantodd]

It is not meant to be funny.


It is the current truth.


Do I like our situation, NO! Do I agree with the laws, NO! It is what it is for now.


Please don't take what I said as advocating the current over bearing laws we have.


Just pointing out options.

Actually you are advocating for it. If you weren't you wouldn't have said "you are not full oppressed, you just have to leave the state of California for Oregon, Nevada or Arizona." Suggesting that having to leave your state of residence to exercise a fundamental right is BS. Also, how does one exercise that "not fully oppressed" right if I am also prohibited by federal law from buying a gun in NV or AZ that I can't acquire in CA with which I would theoretically exercise this right?

[dantodd]

I thought they mentioned they were in Wyoming this year, on the first episode.

I think GOEX would know where they are shooting.

[ldsnet]

You're wrong, IMO. It ABSOLUTELY is a problem... it is the single biggest barrier to dismantling CA's racist, unfair, corrupt gun control regime.

At best, it is selective enforcement

At worst, it is blatant corruption

And no matter how you look at it, it presents a terrible moral hazard.

Its not what we know - its what we can PROVE in court that matters. Good luck with this arguement and a Judge.

I feel your frustration and pain, but the arguement won't fly.

[a1c]

You are simply wrong on this issue. Entertainment exemptions are not a "whole different game." If we are talking about "unusual" weapons, or NFA regulated weapons, or (as in your example) actions that would be a public hazard then you are right.

We are talking about regular weapons and accessories that are completely legal in 40-something states, some with a federal tax. The use of those weapons by one class of person while their use is denied another is EXACTLY what equal protection is about.

And no, I don't think that I am twisting your words at all when I say that you call me wanting equal protection under the law "whining." If you were referring to something other than the request to be treated the same as a movie production please let me know what it was so I can apologize. Otherwise I am kinda stuck on reading your post as written. I realize you think it is not actually equal protection. I have noticed that such arguments typically come from people who are part of or involved with the favored class. Are you part of the entertainment industry?

To make it perfectly clear, I have no issue with Top Shot or any other production using firearms and the exemptions provided in law. My problem is that the law should not have exemptions for certain classes to exercise fundamental rights when the rest of us are denied. The law should apply equally. If the state chooses to restrict access to certain weapons they should pay the price for that choice. In this case they should lose the revenue of TV/movie productions that include guns.

Don't worry. Canada, Louisiana, Florida and New Mexico have been giving huge tax breaks to production companies to shoot there.

But seriously, what happens with entertainment production companies and firearms is not just an exemption to use .50 BMG rifles or hi-cap mags or short-barreled shotguns or other fun toys we don't have access to.

FFLs in California also have exemptions. But like the for the entertainment industry, it comes with strict guidelines. It's not like Top Shot competitors just have a few weekends of fun where they can hang out at the range with those toys, and then put them in the back of the truck and drive home. All firearms are in the constant care of a gunsmith who had to file the paperwork with BATFE. When they're done with them, he takes them away from them. It's not like they are a special class of citizens - they operate within specific guidelines. Even when those productions are shot in a "free" state, they have to follow those guidelines.

Equal protection doesn't apply here, and it's not a fight worth picking. We have much better grounds to invoke it. This is not one of them.

[Crom]

It is not meant to be funny.

It is the current truth.

Do I like our situation, NO! Do I agree with the laws, NO! It is what it is for now.

Please don't take what I said as advocating the current over bearing laws we have.

Just pointing out options.

I think you are flat out wrong on the subject and I disagree with your statements. Saying that we are not fully oppressed because we can drive 6 hours to another state is just wrong.

By your own statements you express agreement with Justice Breyer's argument [quoted above], and the City of Chicago which was forcing residents to drive out of the city to get safety training.

[curtisfong]

I'm for equal protection. But

"I'm all for the RKBA, but"

Sounds like something Brady would say

entertainment exemptions are a whole different game.

I'm tired of the Industry claiming they are special and different.

Entertainment productions have to follow a whole slew of federal regulations when using firearms. Which we don't have to, for instance.

Great. Have those regulations apply to me.

Firearms are used in the entertainment industry for entertainment purposes. When using our firearms, we are using them for .. leisure, sporting ...

Sounds like entertainment to me.

Not to produce a show or a movie.

I refuse to acknowledge this makes anybody special, until *I* can shoot a movie with friends using banned firearms.

You will be far better off invoking the equal protection clause when talking about police officers or guards, or the disparity between counties regarding issuance of LTCs, etc. But bringing it up when it comes to Hollywood doesn't make any sense.

Same thing. Elitism at its ugliest. Not to mention an absolutely disgusting display of entitlement.

Legally, crying "equal protection" may not be a successful strategy, but ideologically (and certainly from a moral hazard perspective) I see no reason why Hollywood is special.

[curtisfong]

All firearms are in the constant care of a gunsmith who had to file the paperwork with BATFE. When they're done with them, he takes them away from them. It's not like they are a special class of citizens - they operate within specific guidelines.

Great. Give me those guidelines. I'll follow them. Wait, I can't, because I'm not a hollywood production company.