It's a good time to object in a meaningful way to Californias harsh gun laws.

DG45 · February 6, 2009, 02:06 AM

The rumor is that the State of California is coming begging to the Federal government for a financial bailout, wanting a fat slice of your tax dollars and mine. We should all contact the NRA to fight them on this, and we should let our congressman and senators know that we expect them to just say no to California when this issue comes up, and that we'll hold them to account if they don't. California has the most obnoxious gun laws in this nation. Just excercising many of the same gun rights you and I take for granted in our states could easily get you criminalized in California. California's dug their own hole. Deeply. Very Deeply. Let em bail themselves out of it.

noyes · February 6, 2009, 02:24 AM

And to think they were worried about San Andreas Fault to put them under water..............................

maestro pistolero · February 6, 2009, 02:56 AM

This is an interesting strategy. Hit 'em where it hurts.

We would basically be saying if you want to go off and circumvent the parts of the Bill of Rights that you don't particularly like, you're going to do it on your own financially.

And, Mr and Ms state legislator, and governator, don't expect the rest of the country to support your costly (in dollars and in liberty) liberal agenda. I know I don't want a dime of my money going to support prosecuting and imprisoning otherwise law abiding folks.

If I ever move back there again, I'm not sure I can even take the mags for my sig 228 that I bought there, and have owned ever since, even though I was licensed to carry it there until I moved. It's really disgusting what has happened there in less than ten years. I hope it's roll-back time, soon.

Go, Alan Gura, Robert Levy, Gary Kleck and the rest of the patriots who are fighting the good fight.

Post incorporation, let's go after the states that overly restrict or ban CC licensing. Once folks get a taste of liberty, they are not going to let it go easily.

DG45 · February 6, 2009, 12:03 PM

I agree with you Pistelo Mastero. But, it's not very helpful to the cause to have had the thread moved from a forum that gets a lot of viewers to one that just a handful of people will ever see. I think this is an issue that would enjoy broad support among our forum members (and viewers, who seem to outnumber members by about 20 to 1) if we could get it on all the forums- and who knows, it might just get some results that would be good for the overall gun community. But we need the help of the people who run these forums to get the message out though. By having the discussion limited to viewing on this one very limited forum the message is in effect being stifled. I'm not saying that the forum masters mean to be stifling it. It's just that it's met the old "this is the way we do things" mentality, instead of a "hey, this is a hell of a good idea, let's see how we can push it forward" mentality.

Al Norris · February 6, 2009, 01:10 PM

DG45, it got moved because this is the area where civil rights and civil rights activism is discussed.

Since the thread was off topic where it was posted, JohnKSa actually did everyone a favor by moving it. He could have just as easily closed it.

DG45 · February 6, 2009, 01:42 PM

Which is more or less what I said.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 6, 2009, 02:09 PM

Let's look at the reality of the proposal. The bail out plans are being pushed by a party that is not particularly friendly to the RKBA. So they won't take it seriously.

The RKBA was not a big issue in the election despite the choir being all in a turmoil (guess who won) so it would have little traction as an issue to mobilize opposition to giving a major state bailout funds.

The progun party is already against the bailout at all - so they would be little help in making a differential statement.

This is really a political issue, btw.

El Paso Joe · February 6, 2009, 04:44 PM

This issue really has become a burr under my blanket... To wrap the RKBA in some part of the bailout is to make it a red herring. It is already a bit contentious and that would only worsen a less than good situation.

Our fundamental rights: Speech, press, religion, RKBA, assembly, non self-incrimination, and all are something - in my (not so) humble opinion - above the level of petty partisan politics. (and BTW when we start using the 'pro gun party' v the other party the veil between the current discussion and partisan politics can get pretty thin).

There has got to be a better way...

DG45 · February 6, 2009, 06:13 PM

In most any kind of contention, a good offense is the best defense. I think that applies here. What harm to "the right to keep and bear arms" can possibly be done by putting all those who would rob you and me of that right (or restrict that right so much as to make it unrecognizabe) on notice that there is a price to be paid in the loss of good will among those who believe that they are trampling on the Constitution of the United States. I think the day we stop trying to win this battle we have acknowledged that we've lost it. I ain't ready for that yet.

cjw3cma · February 6, 2009, 06:30 PM

Ever vigilant. Everyone is entitle to their opinion as long as they understand I am entitled to my Constitutional rights. No if's and's or but's. Always express your rights as calmly as possible.

dm1333 · February 6, 2009, 07:50 PM

I can't see tying a bailout and RKBA together for some very good reasons already posted here. What I can see is people working to get the elected officials who have run the state into the ground thrown out. Once you have a new state legislature, new Congressmen and Senators it is time to start repealing gun control laws. The only one I can see surviving this is Nancy Pelosi because I'm not sure we can change the Bay Area that quickly.

I'm looking forward to another 4 years in CA for the surfing, hiking, cycling, etc. but you can be sure that at the end of my tour there I am going to beat feet for Oregon or retire and head inland.

maestro pistolero · February 7, 2009, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Always express your rights as calmly as possible

This is very important. It impacts our credibility and how we are perceived as much as anything else. If there's one thing more frightening to an anti-gunner than a gun owner it's an angry one.

You can get a lot further with someone with whom you have differences, if you can respectfully acknowledge any good motives behind their views, even if you detest their idea of how to address those concerns.

One thing we tend to forget, is that both sides of the gun rights issue have one huge thing in common, we both revere and wish to protect innocent life. Starting with that as common ground, any discussion has a better chance of improving understanding, and that mutual respect can reap huge dividends.

Sometimes, no meaningful discussion is possible no matter what, usually because there is no attempt by one or both parties to truly understand the other persons viewpoint. Understanding their viewpoint is not the same as agreeing with it.

This, in no way, means we don't draw a line in the sand when push comes to shove on our intrinsic right to self-preservation.

dm1333, I don't understand your objection to this topic being placed in the proper forum. Folks interested in a subject like this would look for it here, and AFAIK no member in good standing is prevented from viewing here, and I think posting. (this is an open forum now, yes?)

Also, pro-active moderation on this site serves an important purpose related to the point I'm making here. That is, the discussion is kept above a certain minimum level of respectability, and civility, so that when fence sitters drop in on us, we are not perceived as a bunch of trigger happy yahoos.

Your idea is a good one, and worth pondering. It does have some difficulties in implementing it in the current political climate, though. I'm interested in what others have to say about it.

DG45 · February 7, 2009, 05:10 PM

Bailouts are contentious issues. They always involve rescuing some special interest group with a lot of money and political clout from the consequenses and expenses of their own actions by transferring that expense to you and me. This is particularly obnoxious when a state tries to get a federal bailout, because its an attempt by the officials who got that state in that condition to keep themselves in office by making sure the people who voted them into office and kept them there - and who could also vote them out - never have to pay the piper themselves. As it happens, California apparently now "needs" such a bailout. In addition to all the other reasons to oppose it, one reason above all stands out: California is one of a handful of states who IMHO have not only been financially irresponsible but have trampled on my (and your) Constitutional rights by criminalizing behavior there that is legal in my own state, and which I believe is protected under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But I cannot so much as drive through California without threat of arrest and imprisonment unless I agree to check what I consider to be my constitutional 2nd Amendment rights at the California state line. Tell me, why should you or I as defenders of the 2nd amendment not strongly oppose the people who made these obnoxious gun laws from achieving their goal of getting a federal taxpayer bailout and thus probably keeping themselves in office to continue their mischief?

maestro pistolero · February 7, 2009, 07:10 PM

While it's true that rescuing California is a bailout of sorts, 'the bailout' is now basically a done deal, and our faithful servants have moved on to the economic stimulus package, which, IMO, is not largely based on economics and is unlikely to stimulate anything, except the massive growth of government.

As to how this funding package may relate to 2A rights, or other civil rights for that matter, I think this congress may lack the political desire, will and courage to deny or limit state funding due to infringements that are not yet deemed so by the courts.

First things first. We need to get incorporation of the 14th against the states. Some isolated cased show a judiciary acting as if that's already the case.

While it may be unthinkable to the average person that the Bill of Rights doesn't necessarily apply to all Americans, that is the present state of the matter, according to the courts in Chicago, Ill and Alameda County, CA.

February 6, 2009, 02:06 AM	#1
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	It's a good time to object in a meaningful way to Californias harsh gun laws. The rumor is that the State of California is coming begging to the Federal government for a financial bailout, wanting a fat slice of your tax dollars and mine. We should all contact the NRA to fight them on this, and we should let our congressman and senators know that we expect them to just say no to California when this issue comes up, and that we'll hold them to account if they don't. California has the most obnoxious gun laws in this nation. Just excercising many of the same gun rights you and I take for granted in our states could easily get you criminalized in California. California's dug their own hole. Deeply. Very Deeply. Let em bail themselves out of it.

February 6, 2009, 02:09 PM	#7
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Let's look at the reality of the proposal. The bail out plans are being pushed by a party that is not particularly friendly to the RKBA. So they won't take it seriously. The RKBA was not a big issue in the election despite the choir being all in a turmoil (guess who won) so it would have little traction as an issue to mobilize opposition to giving a major state bailout funds. The progun party is already against the bailout at all - so they would be little help in making a differential statement. This is really a political issue, btw. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 6, 2009, 04:44 PM	#8
El Paso Joe Senior Member Join Date: July 4, 2006 Location: Spokane Valley Posts: 340	This issue really has become a burr under my blanket... To wrap the RKBA in some part of the bailout is to make it a red herring. It is already a bit contentious and that would only worsen a less than good situation. Our fundamental rights: Speech, press, religion, RKBA, assembly, non self-incrimination, and all are something - in my (not so) humble opinion - above the level of petty partisan politics. (and BTW when we start using the 'pro gun party' v the other party the veil between the current discussion and partisan politics can get pretty thin). There has got to be a better way... Last edited by El Paso Joe; February 6, 2009 at 04:48 PM. Reason: word choice...

February 6, 2009, 06:30 PM	#10
cjw3cma Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2007 Location: Chiloquin, OR Posts: 217	Ever vigilant. Everyone is entitle to their opinion as long as they understand I am entitled to my Constitutional rights. No if's and's or but's. Always express your rights as calmly as possible. __________________ The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

February 6, 2009, 02:24 AM	#2
noyes Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2008 Posts: 1,032	And to think they were worried about San Andreas Fault to put them under water..............................

February 6, 2009, 02:56 AM	#3
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	This is an interesting strategy. Hit 'em where it hurts. We would basically be saying if you want to go off and circumvent the parts of the Bill of Rights that you don't particularly like, you're going to do it on your own financially. And, Mr and Ms state legislator, and governator, don't expect the rest of the country to support your costly (in dollars and in liberty) liberal agenda. I know I don't want a dime of my money going to support prosecuting and imprisoning otherwise law abiding folks. If I ever move back there again, I'm not sure I can even take the mags for my sig 228 that I bought there, and have owned ever since, even though I was licensed to carry it there until I moved. It's really disgusting what has happened there in less than ten years. I hope it's roll-back time, soon. Go, Alan Gura, Robert Levy, Gary Kleck and the rest of the patriots who are fighting the good fight. Post incorporation, let's go after the states that overly restrict or ban CC licensing. Once folks get a taste of liberty, they are not going to let it go easily.

February 6, 2009, 12:03 PM	#4
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	I agree with you Pistelo Mastero. But, it's not very helpful to the cause to have had the thread moved from a forum that gets a lot of viewers to one that just a handful of people will ever see. I think this is an issue that would enjoy broad support among our forum members (and viewers, who seem to outnumber members by about 20 to 1) if we could get it on all the forums- and who knows, it might just get some results that would be good for the overall gun community. But we need the help of the people who run these forums to get the message out though. By having the discussion limited to viewing on this one very limited forum the message is in effect being stifled. I'm not saying that the forum masters mean to be stifling it. It's just that it's met the old "this is the way we do things" mentality, instead of a "hey, this is a hell of a good idea, let's see how we can push it forward" mentality.

February 6, 2009, 01:10 PM	#5
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	DG45, it got moved because this is the area where civil rights and civil rights activism is discussed. Since the thread was off topic where it was posted, JohnKSa actually did everyone a favor by moving it. He could have just as easily closed it.

February 6, 2009, 01:42 PM	#6
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	Which is more or less what I said.

February 6, 2009, 06:13 PM	#9
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	In most any kind of contention, a good offense is the best defense. I think that applies here. What harm to "the right to keep and bear arms" can possibly be done by putting all those who would rob you and me of that right (or restrict that right so much as to make it unrecognizabe) on notice that there is a price to be paid in the loss of good will among those who believe that they are trampling on the Constitution of the United States. I think the day we stop trying to win this battle we have acknowledged that we've lost it. I ain't ready for that yet.

February 6, 2009, 07:50 PM	#11
dm1333 Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2005 Posts: 401	I can't see tying a bailout and RKBA together for some very good reasons already posted here. What I can see is people working to get the elected officials who have run the state into the ground thrown out. Once you have a new state legislature, new Congressmen and Senators it is time to start repealing gun control laws. The only one I can see surviving this is Nancy Pelosi because I'm not sure we can change the Bay Area that quickly. I'm looking forward to another 4 years in CA for the surfing, hiking, cycling, etc. but you can be sure that at the end of my tour there I am going to beat feet for Oregon or retire and head inland.

February 7, 2009, 05:10 PM	#13
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	Bailouts are contentious issues. They always involve rescuing some special interest group with a lot of money and political clout from the consequenses and expenses of their own actions by transferring that expense to you and me. This is particularly obnoxious when a state tries to get a federal bailout, because its an attempt by the officials who got that state in that condition to keep themselves in office by making sure the people who voted them into office and kept them there - and who could also vote them out - never have to pay the piper themselves. As it happens, California apparently now "needs" such a bailout. In addition to all the other reasons to oppose it, one reason above all stands out: California is one of a handful of states who IMHO have not only been financially irresponsible but have trampled on my (and your) Constitutional rights by criminalizing behavior there that is legal in my own state, and which I believe is protected under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But I cannot so much as drive through California without threat of arrest and imprisonment unless I agree to check what I consider to be my constitutional 2nd Amendment rights at the California state line. Tell me, why should you or I as defenders of the 2nd amendment not strongly oppose the people who made these obnoxious gun laws from achieving their goal of getting a federal taxpayer bailout and thus probably keeping themselves in office to continue their mischief?

February 7, 2009, 07:10 PM	#14
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	While it's true that rescuing California is a bailout of sorts, 'the bailout' is now basically a done deal, and our faithful servants have moved on to the economic stimulus package, which, IMO, is not largely based on economics and is unlikely to stimulate anything, except the massive growth of government. As to how this funding package may relate to 2A rights, or other civil rights for that matter, I think this congress may lack the political desire, will and courage to deny or limit state funding due to infringements that are not yet deemed so by the courts. First things first. We need to get incorporation of the 14th against the states. Some isolated cased show a judiciary acting as if that's already the case. While it may be unthinkable to the average person that the Bill of Rights doesn't necessarily apply to all Americans, that is the present state of the matter, according to the courts in Chicago, Ill and Alameda County, CA.