california state legislature

[donw]

i just got word that the state legislature will vote tomorrow on registering ALL LONG GUNS AND SHOTGUNS...call/write/email/fax for a "NO" vote on AB1810

[AJMD429]

THEN be sure to vote OUT OF OFFICE every single one who voted for it, REGARDLESS of whether it passes.

After that, bring the sum-b's who introduced the legislation up on charges of violating their oaths of office, and tell them they're lucky they weren't hung from the nearest tree.

[darkwater]

Hey Don, if you aren't already aware of it, please check out Calguns.net...it's where CA gunnies gather to keep informed and coordinate our efforts. Actually, at this point, with the anti-gun liberals very much in control of the legislature, and Arnold signing most everything they pass, trying to keep these things from passing is like beating your head against a brick wall.

Our best efforts and successes are in the courts right now. Thanks to McDonald v. Chicago, we have 3 cases that are now moving forward to challenge the safe handgun roster, to challenge the "no issue" stance of two counties, and to challenge the gun show ban on county property in another county. We also have something in the works to challenge the ammunition registration law that is due to take effect in 2011. Consider joining the California Rifle and Pistol Assoc. and donating to the Calguns Foundation to help in the legal battles being waged. If you already have, great!

[El Chivo]

and next will come a $50.00 per gun per year registration fee to "cover the costs associated with registration", really to pay the fat pensions of the bureaucrats.

[Mike D.]

It is a fact that trying to convince the 'feel gooders' in our legislature to vote for anything resembling sensible gun laws is a waste of time. Any and all correspondence expressing concern and requesting votes in opposite to their "ideals" will be abruptly deposited in the circular file on the floor. As to voting them out, it ain't gonna happen. The VAST majority of CA voters ONLY vote Democrat and support those whose views parallel theirs. "D" after a legislator's name guarantees a vote for gun "wrongs", not rights.

[El Chivo]

Mike you've got it - the idealogues WANT to upset the gun owners, it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.

The only restraint they have is a potential loss of revenue, that might give pause to some of the less radical. For example, closing down shooting ranges or outlawing deer hunting. Some would love to do it but would lose them so much money that they'll save it for last.

[olyinaz]

"D" after a legislator's name guarantees a vote for gun "wrongs", not rights.

In California for sure but having worked there for over a decade it looks to me as though the majority of Californians vote "D" because they know it's a vote for continued or even improved entitlements or "gets" as I call them. Never mind actually PAYING for all of it - just gimme gimme gimme. Your average California city slicker doesn't own any guns and could care less about gun rights as a result but they probably do have someone benefitting from California's European-style handouts and social programs. You'll NEVER get a majority of Californians to vote against their own gluttony...which is exactly why the state is falling headlong into bankruptcy.

Our only hope regarding gun ownership rights and avoiding what our friends in the U.K. and Australia have suffered is to support and strengthen our Constitutional rights via law suits and through the Supreme Court. FORCE our American ideals back down the throats of the loony liberals infesting both of our coasts and most major cities! Key to that is voting Republican for President and avoiding debacles like this Kagan woman. What a disaster for the Constitution of the United States of America she will be!

I think it was Tip O'Neil who said, "All politics are local." That's largely true and I don't mean to discourage anyone from heeding the call of this thread's original post, but in the case of gun rights it sure seems to me that all politics rest with the Supreme Court. Since our Senate has self-castrated when it comes to SCOTUS bench nominees I've concluded that every gun owner's vote for President is about the only thing that counts. And National Rifle Association membership of course.

Best,
Oly

[J Miller]

Take Oly's post and switch IL for CA and it's the exact same here.

I still vote against any and all democrats. Period!

Joe

[Lawyer Daggit]

Has Arnie done anything for shooters or is he just one of these guys who likes to use guns in movies?

[mikld]

It is a fact that trying to convince the 'feel gooders' in our legislature to vote for anything resembling sensible gun laws is a waste of time. Any and all correspondence expressing concern and requesting votes in opposite to their "ideals" will be abruptly deposited in the circular file on the floor. As to voting them out, it ain't gonna happen. The VAST majority of CA voters ONLY vote Democrat and support those whose views parallel theirs. "D" after a legislator's name guarantees a vote for gun "wrongs", not rights.

Yep, the majority of voters live in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento areas, vastly liberal, and not gun/hunting friendly. But then again, voting in CA is a waste of time; look at Prop 8...

(Not CA bashing, I lived there 60 years)

[FWiedner]

Mike you've got it - the idealogues WANT to upset the gun owners, it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.

The only restraint they have is a potential loss of revenue, that might give pause to some of the less radical. For example, closing down shooting ranges or outlawing deer hunting. Some would love to do it but would lose them so much money that they'll save it for last.

Loss / lack of funding doesn't seem to be a deterent in CA.

[JohndeFresno]

...In California for sure but having worked there for over a decade it looks to me as though the majority of Californians vote "D" because they know it's a vote for continued or even improved entitlements or "gets" as I call them....

Yup. I quit being a union steward within a law enforcement agency. I was disgusted and angry (still am) at how both good State cops and County cops that I know have somewhat sold their souls by supporting their unions' calls to support and endorse liberal, big-spending, anti-death sentence and even anti-imprisonment political leeches because of promises of pay increases to their agencies. The biggest sellout agencies are represented in their highest pay, including (for instance) the California Highway Patrol that supported Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown; and didn't they also support the man who devastated our economy - Gray Davis?

By the way, I'm not singling out CHP because I have an agenda - I do it because they are internationally known as one of the finest, most highly trained (in their field), most selective and respected "street cop" agencies in the world. And an officer deserves to get paid for the risks he takes and sacrifices made - but where does fair pay end and personal greed begin?

I'm past LE of 39 years, yet I NEVER give any credence to any ads where law enforcement unions support a particular candidate. In fact, the first thing that runs through my mind is that this candidate therefore represents more reckless spending through their political promises to the unions who publicly pressure the union delegates in their meetings to support these slugs (I was there - I know). And because of the liberal, slap-on-the wrist sentences allowed in this state, our lawlessness results in the need for more cops, which means more (very strong) police unions, several of which almost always support the liberal candidates who are the least interested in law enforcement as it relates to truly protecting society. How ironic. As an aside, I would challenge any California cop to prove my statement wrong.

HOBIE, I know that you are alert and that you are good at doing your job; and that this thread was doomed to turn very political. PLEASE leave a place marker here so that it at least points to the topic that you will soon be placing into the "Politics" forum. The alert affects all levergunners, one way or the other, as California decisions end up infecting the rest of the nation like a cancer. Thanks in advance - John

[JohndeFresno]

Has Arnie done anything for shooters or is he just one of these guys who likes to use guns in movies?

Bingo.

[Old Savage]

Unions, minorities and liberals out number the good people.

[AJMD429]

Mike you've got it - the idealogues WANT to upset the gun owners, it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.

I once was in a debate with an anti-gun individual who flat-out agreed with my comment that it seemed "out-machoing the NRA was more important than actually reducing violent crime". She justified it by saying that a 'symbolic' victory was important to many people (I guess she meant the ivory-tower and gated-community Liberals whose right to 'warm-fuzzies' was more important than the inner-city woman who has to ride the last bus home each night after slaving at some minimum-wage job, and just wants to keep from getting raped).

Has Arnie done anything for shooters or is he just one of these guys who likes to use guns in movies?

He just LOVES guns in the movies, but THOSE guns are just pretend ones, so they're ok. Most 'movie star' types (with some wonderful exceptions) are like that, and even have their OWN real guns, and often, their own armed bodyguards - but you see, since they are 'special' people, and oh so much more endangered every day by wierdo-stalker-fans than we 'viewers' who work in pharmacies, banks, travel for a living, or whatever, that THEY actually NEED guns, unlike the rest of society.

I won't pay to see a movie that one of those anti-gun hypocrites is in; that's when I'll wait until someone else has a copy and I'll borrow it. On the other hand, if I like a movie with a pro-gun actor in it, I ALWAYS buy a copy, just on principle.

[olyinaz]

Unions, minorities and liberals out number the good people.

Holy carp man get a grip. Minorities are NOT "bad people"!!!!

Incredible...