WARNING: UPDATE:: Proposition Withdrawn!!!

[wildhawker]

The Frontsight marketing schemes are at best questionable. I have no illusions about them. But opposing a change in a right direction just because it is not ideal requires a SOLID plan to make the change even better in a REASONABLE amount of time. At this point I trust CalGuns much more than Frontsight but can someone here give me an idea what are we looking at as a timeline on when legal actions will start producing LTC results in counties like mine (Santa Clara)? I'm a member of Fronsight because they provide a good training. I'm planning to be there this April and most likely they will ask me to sign the petition there. At this point I do not have anything else against it but the fact that it is imperfect and likely wouldn't pass anyway. This is not a strong enough reason for me not to sign it.
Did I miss something?

Scocca v. Smith and Richards v. Prieto will address the constitutional issues of "bear". Richards is stayed pending Nordyke, Scocca may be also. Supporting the wrong proposition now doesn't get you rights faster.

Yes, you missed something.

-Brandon

[jeep7081]

I had some conversation with his "right hand man" in the past in email's. Didn't go well, he made threats, etc. Actually thought I was talking to an 'ex-con. Really. Mind blowing emails.

[AAShooter]

I had some conversation with his "right hand man" in the past in email's. Didn't go well, he made threats, etc. Actually thought I was talking to an 'ex-con. Really. Mind blowing emails.

Who do you think his "right hand man" is?

[dantodd]

The Frontsight marketing schemes are at best questionable. I have no illusions about them. But opposing a change in a right direction just because it is not ideal requires a SOLID plan to make the change even better in a REASONABLE amount of time.

This is not a change in the right direction. There are things that are unacceptable in the initiative. The timeline for shall issue in CA is uncertain. Most likely one or more civil carry cases will be ready for SCOTUS next year. There were three carry cases before SCOTUS this year but all were criminal cases and all were denied a hearing. If SCOTUS accepts one of the upcoming cases expect to have a ruling in June of 2013 and if the case isn't a CA case a few more months for a lawsuit to kick CA in line which puts us around 24 months from now. Longest timeline is around 5 years.

[greasemonkey]

If any of you still replying with questions asking why it's so bad, here's your answer. It is painfully obvious that you didn't R-E-A-D these links that all discuss VERY SPECIFICALLY HOW AND WHY IT'S BAD nor did you read the initiative itself. If someone actually copied/pasted all of the reasons discussed in these threads and posted them here in this thread, I doubt most of you would read them based on your questions poised well after the following sources were posted.

READING IS YOUR FRIEND, quit being lazy. Brandon doesn't have time to spoon-feed you apple-sauce because the spoon is too heavy for you, speaking of which, I have a diaper to change on my newborn.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=491957

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=508596

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=511560

I'm sure there are others.

See also: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=156804

-Brandon

[vladbutsky]

Scocca v. Smith and Richards v. Prieto will address the constitutional issues of "bear". Richards is stayed pending Nordyke, Scocca may be also. Supporting the wrong proposition now doesn't get you rights faster.

Yes, you missed something.

-Brandon

I know about these and follow them.
I do not see how these cases will give better results in a long run. Lets say we win both of them and get a a virtual "shall issue" in Santa Clara in two years from now. I can almost see now that our "representatives" will quickly amend the penal code and will include all of these provisions from the proposed ballot that you don't like and even more the same year they see that they are about to loose LTC issue. Does anyone here believe it will not happen? It is actually much more likely than this ballot getting through.

So what are we are really fighting against here? I'm not sure that benefits of getting a better LTC policy for a short period of time would outweigh unnecessary internal fights between supporters of the ballot and CalGuns. I would rather unite forces.

[vladbutsky]

This is not a change in the right direction. There are things that are unacceptable in the initiative. The timeline for shall issue in CA is uncertain. Most likely one or more civil carry cases will be ready for SCOTUS next year. There were three carry cases before SCOTUS this year but all were criminal cases and all were denied a hearing. If SCOTUS accepts one of the upcoming cases expect to have a ruling in June of 2013 and if the case isn't a CA case a few more months for a lawsuit to kick CA in line which puts us around 24 months from now. Longest timeline is around 5 years.

These "unacceptable" things DO look reasonable for majority of population and WILL pass the legislation EASILY. We cannot win that battle now. So lets not pick it just yet.

[NoJoke]

Right now I'm finishing up the new and updated LTC guides, etc. for 2012.

-Brandon

Wait a minute....What? Please expand.

[dantodd]

I can almost see now that our "representatives" will quickly amend the penal code and will include all of these provisions from the proposed ballot that you don't like and even more the same year they see that they are about to loose LTC issue. Does anyone here believe it will not happen? It is actually much more likely than this ballot getting through.

And CGF would likely file suit challenging the new law on the grounds that it doesn't provide equal protection to all non-prohibited gun owners who desire to carry a firearm for self-defense. Heck, there is already a law suit being run by one of "the right people" to fight LIFETIME prohibition for ALL people convicted of domestic violence crimes. Why would you think we wouldn't fight a similar law in CA. And what about ANY mental illness? Something like 10% of all American's take antidepressants, most of those probably adults so you want to tell 18% of the adult population they don't have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves? What about sleeping meds? That's a mental illness too. Everyone on sleeping pills is disarmed and chum for the criminals? This initiative actually increases the training requirements, and therefore expense, over the existing laws.

[bwiese]

Chances are Piazza has a million things to do from the moment he wakes up to the moment he leaves the office(probably 10 hours later) if he's your typical President(CEO, etc). The only way to garner the attention of these folks is to make a legitimate effort, that includes a certified letter, some form of direct contact from somebody with some pull, etc...something to stand out from the typical humdrum.

And I'd bet over 50% of that involves dealing with why there is no more real estate project there

[dantodd]

Actually thought I was talking to an 'ex-con.

If by that you mean someone who ran a ponzi scheme, got caught, had to pay retribution and ended up nearly losing his entire business because he refused to pay back the money he stole from people you missed by one level of management.

[wildhawker]

I know about these and follow them.
I do not see how these cases will give better results in a long run.

Outside of a constitutional amendment, there is really no greater authority than a SCOTUS decision.

Lets say we win both of them and get a a virtual "shall issue" in Santa Clara in two years from now.

Scocca only goes to equal protection. Richards will eliminate discretion in the law.

I can almost see now that our "representatives" will quickly amend the penal code and will include all of these provisions from the proposed ballot that you don't like and even more the same year they see that they are about to loose LTC issue.

Maybe they try, but such is the way our constitution is constructed: one force acts and is checked by another. We're 3 years in to second amendment civil rights here in California. Your perspective needs to account for the fact that we're on the ramp up, not the ramp down.

Does anyone here believe it will not happen? It is actually much more likely than this ballot getting through.

Yes, just like we'll continue to file lawsuits until the contours of permissible regulations are fleshed out.

So what are we are really fighting against here?

A bad ballot proposal. Same as I mentioned in the OP.

I'm not sure that benefits of getting a better LTC policy for a short period of time would outweigh unnecessary internal fights between supporters of the ballot and CalGuns. I would rather unite forces.

I'd rather just win back our Second Amendment rights and be done with it.

-Brandon

[greasemonkey]

Chances are Piazza has a million things to do from the moment he wakes up to the moment he leaves the office(probably 10 hours later) if he's your typical President(CEO, etc). The only way to garner the attention of these folks is to make a legitimate effort, that includes a certified letter, some form of direct contact from somebody with some pull, etc...something to stand out from the typical humdrum.


If somebody went to my dad with an "email link" they would probably get their *** chewed something fierce...the president doesn't have time for that kind of crap.

And I'd bet over 50% of that involves dealing with why there is no more real estate project there

You know, I got a little sidetracked and forgot to comment on the "little" real estate/development issue. When I was there for the free 4-day handgun course I took, I encountered some members that were pretty pissed off about the property they'd bought into...curiously enough, they were still paying to go.

There were a few lawsuits that Dr Pizza lost regarding these "investments", too. Remember, it's not a pyramid scheme, it's way different...more like Amway or Amsoil. Then again, the term Ponzi-scheme does come to mind.

[BigDogatPlay]

Given that there are a number of potentially fatal flaws in the text of the proposed initiative, I think the notion that CGF is protesting is not that they are seeking an ideal piece of law. They are protesting because they see a potential for negatives to outweigh the positives.

And let's look at this realistically. Front Sight is not shilling this signature gathering effort out of some altruistic, advance Amendment Two position that may be held by Piazza and his corporation. They are shilling it because they smell the opportunity to make buttloads of money downstream.

Strip away "Front Sight good, Front Sight bad" arguments and at it's core Front Sight is still a business that is supposed to make money. In this respect, and on this issue, they aren't doing anything different than many other companies have done over the past few decades concerning ballot initiatives that can enrich them, or damage them.

[guns4life]

And I'd bet over 50% of that involves dealing with why there is no more real estate project there

That could be, either way...I'm sure he's too busy to read this thread.


My point is this seems to be a wasted resource, simply because some folks cannot put aside their personal issues with piazza long enough to divert his efforts towards something more in tune with the foundation...it can still fit his "agenda" while satisfying ours as well.

I'm aware of the past drama between piazza, the NRA, and certain members here...I don't think any of it is worth the loss of what could be an influential ally. I know more people have heard of the name piazza than yourself and Brandon combined, why not use that to our advantage instead of sulking over the past?


...forgive me for not elaborating as much as I'd like, I have a 1 year old who keeps mashing the keyboard as I type! LOL


When somebody can show in writing that piazza would rather profit from this than help progress the cause(by dis-regarding a legitimate attempt to steer him in the right direction) I'll be the first mate on the USS Piazzasucks.