12020 (a)(2) and Top Shot

[erik_26]

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?

Not going to argue with you. Take my words and spin them around however you like if it makes you feel better. What I meant by not "fully oppressed" was that you still have options available. Never did I agree with us having to leave the state as acceptable. It is simply available.


I am a full supporter of 2A (actually all of our rights). I would like to see the majority of gun laws (and other laws) repealed in CA.

If I wish to shoot weapons I can't have hear in CA, I have two options. One, break the law, do whatever I want and run the risk of jail. Or, leave the state to visit friends/family in the neighboring states that allow what I am looking to do.

You are right (and I never disagreed), we shouldn't have to leave the state to enjoy the freedoms in other states. But, that is how it is for now.

Believe me, I send tons of emails to our state legislators, senators and even the governor trying to get laws shot down or vetoed.

[GOEX FFF]

I think GOEX would know where they are shooting.

It takes me 1 1/2 hours to drive to the TS ranch from my house.
If we were were taping in Wyoming, then i'd be living in a free state.

But in reality.. I'm not.

[erik_26]

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.

Man, you guys are quick to jump to conclusions.


Never did I say that having to leave the state was OK. And that 'you should all be thankful for that option.'

I was simply pointing out options available. Maybe others don't realize when they leave California, they are no long bound by California law. Only the laws of the state they are in. And that for now, leaving the state is the only option available.

Apparently I did a terrible job communicating this.


YES, for the record. California residents should enjoy the same constitutional freedoms that other states do not infringe on.

[dantodd]

It takes me 1 1/2 hours to drive to the TS ranch from my house.
If we were were taping in Wyoming, then i'd be living in a free state.

But in reality.. I'm not.

BTW you guys are doing a lot of good bringing healthy examples of the use of firearms to the general public.

[curtisfong]

BTW you guys are doing a lot of good bringing healthy examples of the use of firearms to the general public.

Agreed. Not a fan of reality shows, but showing firearms in a non-negative light in a mainstream show is a++

[Crom]

It takes me 1 1/2 hours to drive to the TS ranch from my house.
If we were were taping in Wyoming, then i'd be living in a free state.

But in reality.. I'm not.

I really like the show, I agree with Dan in that it's wonderful to see responsible real firearm owners and shooters on main stream TV. I do home the viewing numbers are high.

[a1c]

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

Actually, it's not the production company (stop calling it "Hollywood", as that doesn't mean anything, and many entertainment companies are not based in LA anyway) that needs the FFL and the class 3 exemption, but the prop company the production company leases them from. Some do props in general (including firearms), some specialize in firearms, and some have niches for specific types of guns - historical, military, etc.

Here is the problem with invoking the "equal protection" clause. Those companies rent props. Some of them are firearms. Those firearms are not in any way linkable to the Second Amendment. They are not for self defense, they are not to fight tyrants (except the fictional types), they are not even for hunting purposes.

[curtisfong]

Actually, it's not the production company (stop calling it Those firearms are not in any way linkable to the Second Amendment. They are not for self defense, they are not to fight tyrants (except the fictional types), they are not even for hunting purposes.

Then it follows that they shouldn't have them at all!

You're saying that not only is "The Entertainment Industry(TM)" special because they make (OMG!) entertainment, entertainment is better reason to have BANNED firearms than self defense.

You keep thinking I'm making an "equal protection" legal argument. I'm not. I'm making a point about selective enforcement and moral hazard. The only reason cops and "The Entertainment Industry(TM)" support gun-control is they KNOW they'll always be able to get exemptions. I'm sorry. That HAS to stop. It is totally unacceptable.

If "The Entertainment Industry(TM)" can't make movies without functional firearms, tough luck. Use CGI or toy guns. And then you had better make damn well sure *I* can own toy guns and make movies with them too.

[a1c]

Then it follows that they shouldn't have them at all!

You're saying that not only is "The Entertainment Industry(TM)" special because they make (OMG!) entertainment, entertainment is better reason to have BANNED firearms than self defense.

You keep thinking I'm making an "equal protection" legal argument. I'm not. I'm making a point about selective enforcement and moral hazard. The only reason cops and "The Entertainment Industry(TM)" support gun-control is they KNOW they'll always be able to get exemptions. I'm sorry. That HAS to stop. It is totally unacceptable.

I'm very confused here, and I don't understand what you're getting at.

Your premises are all wrong. First of all, you lump the entire entertainment industry as one homogenous block, and then you speak about cops as if they're some pro-gun control block. They're not. Most cops are pro-2A.

You need to separate the law enforcement exemptions from the entertainment industry exemptions. You're mixing apples and oranges here, and your point is getting blurred big time, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

[curtisfong]

The only cops that make a difference in politics: CLEO. How was that not obvious? This topic has been discussed over and over, and now you pretend you have no idea what I was referring to.

And I thought you wanted me to not refer to the CA Entertainment Industry(TM) as "Hollywood".

Let me know what terms I can use that you would consider acceptable.

I honestly don't understand why you can't see the connection.

[a1c]

The only cops that make a difference in politics: CLEO. How was that not obvious? This topic has been discussed over and over, and now you pretend you have no idea what I was referring to.

And I thought you wanted me to not refer to the CA Entertainment Industry(TM) as "Hollywood".

Let me know what terms I can use that you would consider acceptable.

I honestly don't understand why you can't see the connection.

I thought this thread was about the "Hollywood" exemptions. And you brought cops into it. I'm confused.

[curtisfong]

No. You aren't confused in the least. You are deliberately trying to avoid the thrust of my posts. Care to get back on topic, or do you want to continue fabricating excuses to talk about something else?

Moral hazard?

Selective enforcement?

[dantodd]

Selective enforcement?

it isn't selective enforcement because the production companies are given statutory exemptions.

[a1c]

No. You aren't confused in the least. You are deliberately trying to avoid the thrust of my posts. Care to get back on topic, or do you want to continue fabricating excuses to talk about something else?

Moral hazard?

Selective enforcement?

I am sincerely not trying to avoid "the thrust" of your posts. Seriously. Stop accusing me of "fabricating excuses." Please realize that maybe, just maybe, you are not being as clear as you think you are.

I just do not understand the link you're trying to make here.

"Moral hazard"? I don't know what you're referring to.

"Selective enforcement"? Entertainment productions follow specific guidelines to use firearms. You seem to imply that cops choose to ignore the use of otherwise non-legal weapons in California?

Call me stupid if you wish, but I don't understand the points you're trying to make here.

[curtisfong]

it isn't selective enforcement because the production companies are given statutory exemptions.

Which is defacto selective enforcement that they have come to expect.

I see them as equivalent.