Try to Help Our California Friends

[LogicMan]

So California lawmakers are now looking to gun control again. In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the proposed law that would have outlawed all semiautomatic rifles with detachable box magazines. However, now many on Calguns are very concerned that they are going to try and revive this law again, maybe even more severe (like a ban on all semiautomatic rifles period, detachable magazines or not), and since Gavin Newsom is likely to be the next governor, that it may well come to pass. As such, even for people who do not live in California, I think it is prudent for gun rights people to keep an eye on California regarding this and to do our best to help the California gun rights groups to fight it.

[JimPage]

New York could use some help too.

[44 AMP]

When they go after 1st Amendment issues as restrictively as they do the 2nd Amendment, THEN, I will consider them something other than hypocrites.

And yes, I mean Hollywood's for profit glamorization of gun violence.

Sure, its "only" entertainment, and their big money and the 1st Amendment protects them from the same government that trashes the 2nd Amendment in the false clothing of "public safety".

Other than moral support, I don't see what we can do for the good people of California, they simply don't have (or don't vote) the numbers to replace the elected officials who are abusing them on 2nd A issues, let alone all the other issues.

The majority of voters simply see other things as more important, believing the lies they are fed, and in our system the majority usually gets what it thinks it wants, right, or wrong.

Notice I did not say "move". If you can, you probably should, but I won't give it as advice, because it is simply not realistic for most, and to me is as irksome as advice, as all the "send it to me" replies in threads where someone has an issue with something...

[LogicMan]

New York could use some help too.

Yes, I am a resident of New York. We are not allowed any bullet button AR-15s here. Basically we are limited to semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines at the most. All "assault weapons," bullet-buttons or not, are outlawed. I do not think that this state is under the same gun control threat though that California is. While virtually impossible to get repealed, the SAFE Act had to be passed in the dead of night with no review time for the legislature by Cuomo, and he had to pull a stunt to do it (declaring a State of Emergency to allow the legislation to be passed without the standard I think three day or two-day review period) (which the courts upheld ). He did this because he knew the legislation likely would have been derailed or faced serious roadblocks if he allowed it go through the standard way.

California on the other hand, does not seem to have this "problem" for gun controllers. They can just slowly pass whatever legislation they want and gun owners are at their mercy.

[LogicMan]

When they go after 1st Amendment issues as restrictively as they do the 2nd Amendment, THEN, I will consider them something other than hypocrites.

They do not believe that there is any individual right to arms or even to self-defense many of them.

And yes, I mean Hollywood's for profit glamorization of gun violence.

Sure, its "only" entertainment, and their big money and the 1st Amendment protects them from the same government that trashes the 2nd Amendment in the false clothing of "public safety".

Other than moral support, I don't see what we can do for the good people of California, they simply don't have (or don't vote) the numbers to replace the elected officials who are abusing them on 2nd A issues, let alone all the other issues.

The majority of voters simply see other things as more important, believing the lies they are fed, and in our system the majority usually gets what it thinks it wants, right, or wrong.

We can offer donations of money to the California gun rights organizations I would think, but yes, options for support are otherwise limited unfortunately. The voters of California IMO are to gun rights what the voters to Texas are to abortion (Texas recently passed a restrictive abortion law, which I believe is now going to the Supreme Court).

Notice I did not say "move". If you can, you probably should, but I won't give it as advice, because it is simply not realistic for most, and to me is as irksome as advice, as all the "send it to me" replies in threads where someone has an issue with something...

That is a heated subject of debate amongst gun rights people from what I understand. Some say that those who can should up and leave California, that it's a lost cause, others say that kind of thinking is defeatist and people should stay and fight.

[Pond, James Pond]

Can CalGuns not organise protests against such moves, reminding the politicians that they should be addressing the real causes of terror attacks, rather than something that affects regular members of the public?

Going after the means is so much easier than going after the motives.

They know that in the same way that they know the general public won't spot the difference because "at least they're doing something, right?"

[LogicMan]

I don't think California gun owners are numerous enough to pose any threat to the legislators in the state, and many are so rabidly anti-gun that they just don't care about any pro-gun arguments period. They are like the state-level version of the Washington, D.C. city government or the Chicago city government.

[Pathfinder45]

I wasn't born in California, but I did a lot of my growing up there, as well as K-13 in school. Arcata High School, class of '73, etc.
In my view, there are two Californias. If you haven't spent much time there, you probably don't really know California. And the California most people know, is a very different place than the one I know. But there is a problem there, the very same problem I see here in Oregon, and I suspect is all too common throughout the United States. That problem is this: You can have high-density population areas that have a high concentration of social issues and interests that don't represent the majority of the land area, yet the vast majority of the votes are concentrated there to the extent that the urbanized counties are in the position to force their values upon the whole state. On the face of it, Majority Rule, sounds good, right, and just. The other side of that coin can read quite the opposite. We have minority rights in this country now. What we need is protection of rural counties interests from the will of over-populated counties. The most Northerly counties in California contain some of the most remote wild country in the U.S. I have heard that counties like Siskiyou, and Trinity, and some others are not favorable to some of the latest gun restrictions coming from Sacramento. These counties are full of forests and farms and ranches and Wilderness and mines. The people who live there make their livings accordingly and have little to nothing to do with the California that comes to most people's minds, and may actually resent the will of all those votes that don't live in their world. Your own state may have a similar dichotomy. Here in Oregon, it's the liberal trending, Willamette Valley with the vast majority of the population, versus the rest of the state that would rather not have things crammed down their throats.

It does seem that the human condition is highly hypocritical, and the anti-gun faction illustrates that so well: Almost everyone either loves guns, or they are entirely fascinated by them, even as they fear them. If California were to ban the use of firearms in film and television production, they would lose that industry overnight.

If we lose California, your state could be next. There are no easy answers here.

I learned to shoot in California..... It's either a great state with some bad places, or it's a bad state with some great places. I'd rather live there than New Jersey and I'm going to New Jersey for the Holidays.

Happy Holidays to all......

[Fivesense]

That is a heated subject of debate amongst gun rights people from what I understand. Some say that those who can should up and leave California, that it's a lost cause, others say that kind of thinking is defeatist and people should stay and fight.

The cause in California was lost 20 years ago when good people didn't see what was coming and didn't act on what they did see. That's how it is in most places but California is different due to the sheer size of the population, both legal and illegal. Half the state is on the dole or works for the state. Once that tipping point was reached, it's all been downhill from there- too many people on the government teat.

Leaving the formerly Golden State isn't defeatist. Staying there, only to pay increasingly out of control taxes, exorbitant cost of living, and dealing with libtard morons who don't understand basic economics, history, or civics is.

I believe California can be reclaimed, but it will take an economic collapse or natural disaster.

[62coltnavy]

Pathfinder hit the nail on the head: the dichotomy is between the dense and democratically controlled urban areas and the mostly Republican but sparsely populated rural areas. In California, there are two Democrats to every Republican, resulting in a nearly veto proof majority. Oregon is seeing the same issues, as revealed by the passage of its background check law. Washington is controlled by the dense Seattle urban area, Illinois by Chicago, New York (mostly) by New York City,New Jersey by its densely populated north, and so on. Until the Supreme Court declares (as seems unlikely) that the Second Amendment is not subject to the vagaries of majority rule, and protect it as it does the other rights, then gun rights are a losing proposition in the long run as the population continues to grow. the only solution is to take your favorite Democrats shooting, and convince them, like the Chief of the Detroit Police Department, that individuals are their own first responders, and though it will attempt to protect you (or clean up the mess after) the govenrment has no duty to provide for your safety on an individual basis.

[Fivesense]

People choose to live in rural areas, often because they are independent minded, don't want to be around cities/crowds, and like the illusion of not having the government on their back.

The problem with that is that (if they are politically/ideologically minded) they also lose their ability to exert influence. Smaller rural areas matter very little to political parties and interests unless they have individuals with deep pockets. If you need further proof, look at a map of the last couple presidential elections- it's a vast see of red bookended by small strips of blue (heavily populated, traditionally liberal areas).

You'd think the "red areas" would far outweigh the "blue areas," but the blue areas are the most densely populated.

In California's case, LA and San Francisco Bay Area account for most of the voting power, even though by overall population the rest of the state is still so large. The reason is the way voting districts are comprised.

How to overcome this? Everyone in the sparsely populated areas must band together and show up to vote. It's that simple.

[62coltnavy]

Since I did not understand LogicMan's post, let me explain the bullet button. California in 1993 banned by name virtually every AR on the market at that time, and further banned any semi-auto rifle that did not have a "fixed magazine." A fxed magazine was defined as one that requires a tool for its removal, which at the time meant that mag releases buttons had to be disabled through the use of a "Prince" device (that acted to freeze the button by use of a small screw through the face of the release preventing it from being depressed). ARs thus had to be opened up and loaded internally with a max of 10 rounds. Along came a man with a bright idea, and the Bullet Button was born. In essence, the mag button is too long to be depressed, but the center section is a separate piece that attaches to the mag release rod, and is too small to be depressed by a finger. Instead, a tool of some type must be inserted into the center of the button to depress the rod, the "tool" it was designed for being the tip of a bullet. The BB thus complies with the literal terms of the statute. (There are other devices as well, one that magnetically attaches to the face of the button but is only legal if removed before commencing fire.)

Senator "DeLeon, along with then Senator (and now convicted felon) Lela "Gu Runner" Yee, proposed to ban the bullet button in 2013. After Yee's arrest on gun running charges (talk about hypocrisy), the bill was withdrawn. Recently, current Lt. Governor (and former SF mayor and gubernatorial candidate to replace Gov. Brown) Gavin Newsome has started an initiative drive to not only ban the bullet button but to require ammunition purchase IDs (issued after a background check), instant background checks at the time of purchase of ammo, ammo purchase limits with reporting to the police, and paper and video recording requirements by (now licensed) ammunition sellers in face to face transactions (eliminating internet sales). Senator DeLeon has promised to revive his bullet button ban, a bill that would redefine "fixed" to require that the mag could be removable only by disassembly of the action. Between the two, the intent is to ban semi-auto Evil Black Rifles from the state, to make gun ownership burdensome and expensive, and subject to intrusive public monitoring, all in the name of the public good.

If Newsome is elected governor, as seems likely at this point in time, and with a commanding majority in both houses of the State Legislature, the future of gun rights in California is bleak. For those of us who reside here, buy now and buy often. Stock up on ammo, because things may soon be worse than the worst day of the last drought.

[Fivesense]

For those of us who reside here, buy now and buy often. Stock up on ammo, because things may soon be worse than the worst day of the last drought.

Buy at gun shows, including those in Reno.

[62coltnavy]

"Buy at gun shows, including those in Reno."

For ammo that is fine, except for the long drive. But we still lose our ARs, unless someone starts selling 5.56 on stripper clips at an affordable price. Last I looked at it, such ammo was easily 2x the price of loose rounds, as I recall about .69 per round. And someone would need to manufacture longer rear take-down pins to make popping open the upper easier and faster.

[Fivesense]

I feel for you.

As an "ex-pat" of California, I made the decision not to endure what is on the horizon. I make no judgement as to why people stay, as the reasons are myriad. The ultimate issue however is that California, like New York, has let the inmates run the asylum.

[CowTowner]

They do not believe that there is any individual right to arms or even to self-defense many of them.

The California Constitution does not contain a right to keep and bear arms. Only the right of self defense. That seems a bit vague to me, but that's what they have.

[LogicMan]

Until the Supreme Court declares (as seems unlikely) that the Second Amendment is not subject to the vagaries of majority rule, and protect it as it does the other rights, then gun rights are a losing proposition in the long run as the population continues to grow. the only solution is to take your favorite Democrats shooting, and convince them, like the Chief of the Detroit Police Department, that individuals are their own first responders, and though it will attempt to protect you (or clean up the mess after) the govenrment has no duty to provide for your safety on an individual basis.

Gun rights are not strictly a lost cause. Back in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the public overall was more in favor of gun control, and things like concealed carry were unheard of. Now virtually every state minus two has shall issue. When it was first being proposed, the antis were going crazy, saying it was going to lead to people shooting each other over minor fender benders and arguments and so forth, and it didn't work out that way. Obama after Newtown was unable to get any gun control passed.

It is a constant fight but there is reason for hope.

[kilimanjaro]

California is Berkeley writ large.

[LogicMan]

Well, here they go. Another attempt to flat-out ban all semiautomatic rifles that take detachable magazines, as "assault weapons." Another, lesser bill, just bans bullet buttons:

LINK

[MurBob]

Here's a thought..

If they can ban a certain kind of gun because of some specific characteristic, what's to stop them from banning all guns eventually?

So, they pass a law that says no detachable mags on semi-autos..
Then they pass a law that says no semi-autos period.
Then they pass a law that says you can only have a magazine capable of carrying just 10 rounds. Then 5, then only a single round.
Then they pass a law saying the round can't have a velocity over 500 fps
Then 200 feet per second..
Then they tell you you can have the gun with a single round mag but you have to physically throw the projectile with your bare hand.

At what point does the constitution prevent them from going any further?

And my second thought..
When they succeed in banning all the guns, I might actually feel a bit safer here in Michigan because I know exactly where all the terrorist are going to head to for maximum carnage.

[kilimanjaro]

They want all guns banned, it's as simple as that.

If you like your trap and skeet gun, you can keep your trap and skeet gun.

Yeah, right.

[Radny97]

Once you lose the power of the majority, your legislative options are limited. This unfortunately is what appears to have happened in CA with gun rights. At that point you have to either donate lots of money to the campaigns of like minded politicians who have positions of power on committees and slow things down legislatively and when that doesn't work your remaining defense is the constitution as interpreted by our courts. Constitutional law suits are expensive as well. Our Californian friends need organization for both lobbying and political action groups that can fund lawsuits. Maybe the NRA can give them a few tips.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

At what point does the constitution prevent them from going any further?

That is when the federal judiciary up to and including the Supreme Court decides such restrictions are unconstitutional.

Given the dogma of reasonable restrictions being used by lower courts and the refusal of the SCOTUS to take a case, don't hold your breath.

An action has to make it up to a constitutional challenge. Don't they teach civics anymore. I guess not.

Now, you could also have federal legislation overriding state actions. Past GOP presidents were less than proactive on gun rights. If one does get elected in 2016, would they step up proactively to expand gun rights. Don't hold your breath. If the Democrats win, the best you can hope for is steady state federally as the Congress might block new laws. New regs, executive order attempts would be tried.

[g.willikers]

I lived in California before the state turned completely stupid.
As the hand writing on the wall increased, it became obvious the best thing was not to live there anymore.
So, I left.
While I do miss the California auto scene and have occasionally gone back to visit, the place is a lost cause for gun rights, as well as individual rights in general.
Maybe one day it will split into separate states or something and the freedom lovers can go their own way.
But it's doubtful the way their political scene is arranged.
It's so much easier to just move away to a more agreeable place.
Fortunately, there's so many to choose from, it makes little sense to do anything else.

[MurBob]

An action has to make it up to a constitutional challenge. Don't they teach civics anymore. I guess not.

Huh? The statement is clear enough but I don't understand why you made the statement... What point where you trying to make?