California RKBA


PDA






crkba
July 16, 2008, 03:14 AM
Hi,
I'm new to this forum though I've had a link on my homepage to Oleg's a-human-right for aeons.

I have a plan to put a California Constitutional amendment on the 2010 Primary ballot. I've bought the .net, .org and .com domains for "crkba" and they currently redirect to my family homepages where I have preliminary description of the plan. See California RKBA (http://www.crkba.org)

I've also started a blogspot here CRKBA Blog (http://crkba.blogspot.com)

Basically, I'm trying to get momentum out of heller and give the lawyers something to hang their hat on in forcing the california courts to recognize rkba. I think the plan can succeed because I've identified a way of making the signature gathering as painless as possible and virtually online only.

Please visit the above pages and let me know what you think, either here, on the blog or via my emails.

Cheers
Phil Terry

If you enjoyed reading about "California RKBA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Matt King
July 16, 2008, 03:21 AM
I think the best way to advance the right to bear arms in california is first to get the second amendment incorporated. I think this will happen in the chicago case currently making its way thru the courts. Next, challenge the state AWB as un-constitutional based on the fact that many of the guns banned (IMO) fall under the "common use" qualification.

crkba
July 16, 2008, 03:28 AM
Hi Matt,

I agree that other events are going to happen...eventually.

My fear is that the incorporation approach a) won't happen and b) is viewed by the state critters as the feds imposing on them. So they'll do what DC is currently doing, ie comply minimally.

What I'm trying to do is to generate a grass roots "pull" effort to tell our state critters that hey, there may be votes in going pro-gun. If we can get this amendment then we can let the lawyers loose within CA without having to wait for incorporation...

Matt King
July 16, 2008, 03:39 AM
I'm pretty sure that incorporation is going to happen. After all isn't the 1st amendment incorporated? The supreme court found that the second amendment is an individual right and I think the states would have a hard time arguing that it somehow it doesn't apply to that state.

Frank Ettin
July 16, 2008, 03:53 AM
Two things we need to do: get the Second Amendment incorporated and get our leader in California to recognize gun owners and those committed to the RKBA as a significant political and economic force.

The first is critical, but it is being attended to elsewhere. Nonetheless, we need to recognize how important it is. As things stand now, the courts have not yet said that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. We need clear judicial authority for that proposition so that we can use Heller to attack California laws in court.

To accomplish the second, we need to swell the memnbeship of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the NRA.

Gray Peterson
July 16, 2008, 04:45 AM
I agree with the idea of the amendment, but I'm not too sure of what'll happen after it gets submitted to the ballot and the general election campaign is concerned. I still think that the California anti-gun establishment can outspend CRPA/NRA Coalition by several orders of magnitude.

Plus the provision that is proposed is WAAAAAY too complicated.

How about this language instead:

"The right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state shall not be impaired, but nothing herein shall justify the carrying of arms concealed from view of others".

Then again, that's just me in terms of seeing what should be thrown on there. Though honestly I would wait until AFTER the incorporation cases come down the pike with Nordyke and other cases.

ilbob
July 16, 2008, 09:25 AM
a few years ago some people tried to get a similar rtkba amendment on the CA ballot. they didn't even come close to getting enough signatures and it just died. they discovered early on why the only practical way to get enough signatures on petitions is to pay people to collect the signatures.

I agree the proposed amendment is a little complicated.

brighamr
July 16, 2008, 11:20 AM
crkba - I think you have a good idea. Take some of the feedback here with a grain of salt, but make sure to read all the feedback as occasionally it will make sense :) . Anything you do is better than doing nothing, and for that I applaud you.

Are you following the CCW cases? Actually going to the court dates and following those cases may give you some "ammo" for your fight. It also might get you in contact with some very pro-rkba people who can help in your quest.

ilbob
July 16, 2008, 12:00 PM
Anything you do is better than doing nothing, and for that I applaud you. That is just dead wrong. A badly written proposed amendment could well have unanticipated and very negative consequences.

It is entirely possible the proposed amendment could fail. Would that be better than not doing it in the first place? I don't know. Maybe not. It may well be that as a few other posters have pointed out that CA has already incorporated the entire US constitution and does not even know it.

crkba
July 16, 2008, 03:11 PM
Thanks for all the responses, keep em coming.

Lonnie, one of the main aims of this approach is to kill may issue ccw so I'm not adding that clause to the amendment.

Fiddletown, in my opinion, as a lifetime member of more RKBA organizations than I can list, NRA and CRPA are useless in California, they appear to thrive on donations to reduce the rate of loss of rights, I want to fight back and regain rights. My approach is the nuclear option...

Ilbob, Top down via heller won't get us any rights back. They will strive to interpret that everything is still ok and we will have to fight cases one by one to chip away. I'm going bottom up, Californians are instructing their legislature and courts that this is the way its going to be: no restrictions on guns. Did I mention it was a nuclear option... Also, I'm aware of previous failures and discuss that on my web pages... I think my online approach should help fix the signature gathering problem of the past. This is post the grass roots internet activisim of Ron Paul, Dean, etc.,

Cheers
Phil

crkba
July 16, 2008, 03:17 PM
Ilbob, agree if I word it wrong it could be bad thats why I'm looking for input. As I said on the web pages, this is a way off from being submitted to the AG, mid 2009 so we have time to refine and get some legal input from those who have such qualifications. However, the aim is not to water it down to make it anodyne and acceptable for the California girlymen and soccer mums.

Instead I want to frame the discussion to convince them its in their best interests.

Who knows by 2009 when the fuel rationing and food riots are hitting the streets people might have different opinions on RKBA :-)

ilbob
July 16, 2008, 03:27 PM
Ilbob, Top down via heller won't get us any rights back. They will strive to interpret that everything is still ok and we will have to fight cases one by one to chip away. I'm going bottom up, Californians are instructing their legislature and courts that this is the way its going to be: no restrictions on guns. Did I mention it was a nuclear option... Also, I'm aware of previous failures and discuss that on my web pages... I think my online approach should help fix the signature gathering problem of the past. This is post the grass roots internet activisim of Ron Paul, Dean, etc.,
You really believe that a mere amendment to the CA Constitution will mean anything to the judges and legislators in your state?

Incidentally, I am not saying this is a bad approach. I am suggesting you have dramatically underestimated the amount of work involved. And even if the state goes along with the idea that people can go out and gather a single signature of themselves, what makes you think you can get enough signatures even that way?

If it took someone a mere minute each to get a signature this way, you are talking something like 6 man years of work. Someone has to collate them into the prescribed order, and submit them.

Do you have any idea how much paper you are talking about? Typically 500 sheets to a ream, so you are looking at 1500 reams of paper, or 150 cases.

And most states have rules about how the things get submitted, usually in some kind of binder. You may have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in supplies to buy just to submit them.

I don't think you should let the effort dissaude you, but you need to look at it a whole lot more realistically and come up with a well thought out plan that involves at the very least several hundreds of volunteers.

crkba
July 16, 2008, 05:02 PM
And even if the state goes along with the idea that people can go out and gather a single signature of themselves, what makes you think you can get enough signatures even that way?

Well I quote the legislation that allows it and I wrote to the AG to confirm mechanics. They refused to comment against and I'm having to follow up with country officials to find out what "hidden" traps they may have. I am doing this with due diligence as documented on my website and blog, its not something I just blew off the top of my head in a forum discussion...

You really believe that a mere amendment to the CA Constitution will mean anything to the judges and legislators in your state?


OK, I can't argue with that one, if they are that lawless then the supreme court and the feds aren't going to sway them either....

If it took someone a mere minute each to get a signature this way, you are talking something like 6 man years of work. Someone has to collate them into the prescribed order, and submit them.

I don't "get a signature" or spend time on that part. Individuals download the forms, print em out, fill em in and mail them to me. I haven't found a sequence numbering requirement in the CA regs yet... Am checking with county officials for such like or for binding requirements etc. Yes I do discuss the volume of mail and requirement for volunteers as things ramp up on my webpages...

If you have or know anyone who has experience of CA specific regs and requirements please put them in contact with me. I am serious about this and am putting forth real money to get this accomplished, I have not underestimated the effort required on my part. I may be overestimating the intestinal fortitude of CA gun owners to actually do something....

I started this thread to seek positive suggestions and try to flush out and find like minded individuals who can offer to help. I'm not short of offers of opinions as to why its all a waste of time and won't work and....

I don't think you should let the effort dissaude you...

Thanks, I won't and I am not underestimating it. I will need help thats why I'm here trying to put out feelers ahead of time. I am seed funding this to get it off the ground and a volunteer grass roots internet co-ordinated campaign will keep the costs down. We can't let them price us out of the market of ideas and actually using the "tools for popular democracy" that were put there for us to use!

And I don't mean to harp on your comments in particular ilbob, I understand your just trying to help and stop anyone or anything going off half-cocked for which much thanks. But everyone reading this, please forward to resources you think could help or might be interested in helping with this project.

Cheers
Phil

Frank Ettin
July 17, 2008, 12:06 AM
...Fiddletown, in my opinion, as a lifetime member of more RKBA organizations than I can list, NRA and CRPA are useless in California, they appear to thrive on donations to reduce the rate of loss of rights, I want to fight back and regain rights. My approach is the nuclear option....
First, you entirely miss the point of NRA/CRPA membership. Politics is a numbers game. How seriously any point of view is taken directly correlates with how many votes and how much economic power are perceived to be behind that point of view. So what counts is head count. More California members of the NRA and more members of CRPA mean that our positions will be taken more seriously because we appear to wield voting and economic power. Ideology means nothing.

Second, yours is hardly the "nuclear option" unless you can (1) get it on the ballot; and (2) win. If you fail, it will merely be interpreted by the political establishment that the RKBA can not get any meaningful traction in California and therefore can be safely ignored. How realistically have you assessed your chances of succeeding? Indeed what makes you think that you can win when this has previously been tried and failed?

...if I word it wrong it could be bad ....
Very true, and simple is better. I suggest that you look at some existing RKBA provisions already in the constitutions of a number of states. Arizona, Virgina (okay, it's realy a commonwealth) and Vermont come to mind. In many cases, existing state provisions would have the additional benefit of having already been dealt with by the courts of those states, some they come complete with some track record. While not directly binding on California courts, such a track record could be persuasive.

...I may be overestimating the intestinal fortitude of CA gun owners to actually do something....
The problem is that I doubt that there are enough California gun owners to swing this. You need to get California voters who don't own guns to sign on to this project. Without a bunch of them, I don't think that you can have the numbers you'll need.

Librarian
July 17, 2008, 04:38 AM
I'm all for the idea.

But do you have any idea how much money its going to cost?

That's not meant as discouragement; it's a reality check.

Here's the outline of the problem:

If we go by recent estimates, about 30% of households have guns. So, you could count on possibly 30% of voters being at least somewhat sympathetic. You (or anyone) need to get an additional 20.1% of those voting in the election you select to go along with you.

Do you recall the last election cycle and the Indian Gaming initiatives? Think about all the advertising that was on the airwaves. A successful campaign will have to match or exceed that effort. It will have to establish RKBA as non-threatening, revenue neutral.

And you will have to get over the TV and radio stations and newspapers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose - the 3 biggest markets in the state - refusing your ad buys. There's no way to compel those media publishers to take your money, and I'm sure you're aware of the consistent anti-gun output in all three markets.

Most successful initiatives have the backing of large corporate interests or large union interests. How do you sell RKBA to one of those major groups?

Initiatives do succeed. How will you solve the problems so yours will be one of those?

Oana
July 17, 2008, 05:13 AM
I tend to think that a constitutional amendment would go nowhere at this time. But...if someone starts the ball rolling now, maybe five years down the line it could be a possibility. Do your research, choose wisely.

Personally, I think there may be some real possibilities in pushing for shall-issue CCW before a full amendment. There's been enough of a brouhaha over Sheriff Carona in Orange County to get people thinking in that direction, if it's played right.

crkba
July 17, 2008, 08:58 PM
You raise good points if you goal is to train the assembly and senate critters not to pass bad laws, the only thing these puppies know is being thrown out by disgruntled owners. If they don't respect the owners, us, because of numbers or influence you are right they will ignore us and keep passing bad laws.

Currently, when this happens we have no means to challenge it...

By putting RKBA in the CA constitution we can now instruct our lawyers on what to go after, both existing bad laws, and any new laws the bad puppies keep passing. My proposal isn't instead of training them its how to clean up when the training fails or isn't yet effective.

Which brings me to the second point. How to get it on the ballot and how to win. For me, the lack of visibility and publicity is a GOOD THING.

Getting it on the ballot isn't a voting issue, people can't vote against putting it on the ballot... its a pure game of virally communicating and getting enough pro voices to sign.

Since I came to California I've become aware in the past of various campaigns, either by word of mouth, online, etc. which I would have liked to have supported. How did I support them? I couldn't! You'd have to trip over one of their circulators in a parking lot and sign the piece of paper. Don't live in an area where they thought it worthwhile putting circulators then tough luck, won't get my signature.

My approach avoids this. If you hear about it and go to the website and want to support you can download sign and post- done. One more vote for the initiative on the ballot.

So its purely a question of getting 700,000+ signers from the gun community or those sympathetic to it.

Second, I'm putting this out for a Primary election, june 2010. Turnout will be incredibly low if we don't stick it in the anti's faces and make a huge noise and look like we might be credible. So I don't need a huge percentage of the population. 8 million turned out for the last gubernatorial election - not primary. So we need only a bare majority of that turnout - which I want low so that the few gun owners who still exist out here stand a chance of winning. This is an internet meetup/flash mob/grass-roots take 'em by stealth approach. I exactly don't want a big in your face campaign to stir up the opposition.

Third, to Librarian's point that we have to have a publicity campaign "remember the gaming initiatives." No, I don't accept that. Clearly if this were the case you could tell me off the top of your head how many initiatives are currently qualified and what they are for the Nov 2008 election (Presidential no less)? No? Why not? You missed all their huge campaigns? There are 12 approved and 18 still circulating!
Check them out here (http://sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008General)

I'm a veteran of the Ron Paul campaign (just a lowly local precinct captain) so I know how an internet campaign where all the media either shut you out or ridicule you can still get 5% of the California primary vote. Forget politics as usual, paper ballots and parking lot campaigns - this is California where the internet reigns...

Finally, the only group I need to sell it to is gun owners and friends and family of same. I don't need unions or corporations. People here seem to want me to accept that these are a vanished race in california before we even begin. I believe they are an embattled group lying low and trying to survive who won't come out of the woodwork for half measures. We have to give them something worth fighting for... hence no half measures.

Finally finally (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) while
my initial website doesn't reflect this yet I do intend to try and couch the arguments in a way which can encourage the non-choir boys and girls. Banging on about 2nd Amendment or right to carry tends to scare the sheep. If they can see it in terms of improving their quality of life they may buy in or at least stay home, or at least not vote no on the ballot. I've always liked Oleg's human-right site, he uses female and minority images to make quality of life points in simple real life issues and I'd want to try and mimic that style in my campaign.

Does this make more sense now?

Cheers
Phil

crkba
July 17, 2008, 09:26 PM
I'm assuming your trying to say I need 50.1% ie a majority of eligible voters?

I only need to win a simple majority of the actual voters on the day who actually cast a yes or no on the particular initiative. Lots of people who vote don't punch every button... so in a primary election the turnout is going to be less than 8million. 30% of the 36 million population/23 million eligible voters/15 million registered voters/8 million turn out at last election.... numbers are on my web page.

This is doable guys... for a board which supports the THR policies of "positive supportive" discussion I'm surprised this is such an uphill battle...

I was hoping for some pro bono advice from lawyers, people who've actually executed an initiative, some people with legislative insiders, you know helpful pointers....

Gun owners - the new minority victim group

not an appellation that our forefathers would like to see us embracing quite so wholeheartedly...

Cheers
Phil
PS I reply to individual posts so people can cross reference what I'm replying to... I don't mean it to be anything personal and I apologize that I do tend to take a person's comments as an exemplar of a group think and combat it.... need to work on my communication skills.

Please do keep them coming as I will need to be able to produce replies to these issues going forward and this definitely helps me get things straight.

billwiese
July 17, 2008, 09:31 PM
No, it doesn't make more sense now, Crkba.

The problem is even if you make it to the ballot there's still a fair chance it could LOSE - depends what's else on the ballot, what it's tied in with, etc.

And the problem is that a fair fraction of gunnies don't vote - or guns are down their list. If you lose, you set back all the court/legal work that's in play. Some gunnies seem to vote guns way down the list because getting free gubmint cookies or voting the way their union tells them to is a higher priority.

Also, not everyone that has a gun is a true gunnie. They're "duck hunters", have an old 38spl in the nightstand, etc. They may even actively vote against such an initiative.

NOW IS THE WORST TIME EVER FOR AN RKBA AMENDMENT TO CA CONSTITUTION.
We have too much in progress in the courts and too much is going our way. All of a sudden a ton of California stuff is, or shortly will be, in play.

(BTW, Oregon seems to have RKBA in theirs and some bright folks tell me that theirs really isn't that great, its force is way way diminished to what's essentially a right to musketry - and that Oregon's general progun stance is still just due to the shape of the voter base.)

Remember, a big part of the reason we have the assault weapons ban in CA is because a bunch of 'duck hunter' types said "I don't need XXX" to hunt with, and the old-line Garand/M1A guys didn't give a fig about 'black rifles'. (Some of these guys would later get popped for AW flash hider violations 12 years later.)

We've been down this road once before just two years ago. Besides being a bad idea due to above, it didn't have a chance to even get a full round of qualifying signatures. Getting sigs at gun ranges and gun shops and the occaisional committed pro-gun biz owner (restaurant, muffler shop, etc.) doesn't offer the frequency or density required.

Any California ballot drive these days requires $50-$100 mil to have even a chance of success - for both the required PAID SIGNATURE GATHERERS as well as an ad campaign to get traction. It can cost more to run a successful CA ballot drive than the direct costs to elect a President of the US.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

CA gunnies: join http://www.calguns.net !
CA gunnies: join the NRA!

crkba
July 17, 2008, 09:50 PM
We've been down this road once before just two years ago. Besides being a bad idea due to above, it didn't have a chance to even get a full round of qualifying signatures. Getting sigs at gun ranges and gun shops and the occaisional committed pro-gun biz owner (restaurant, muffler shop, etc.) doesn't offer the frequency or density required.

Please read my webpages, main page (http://www.crkba.org), my comments on previous attempts (http://www.crkba.org/previous.html), before banging off "it won't work."

It will work (at least to getting on the ballot) because its an online viral campaign..... loophole in the mechanism a bug to sacramento a feature for me...

Cheers
Phil

billwiese
July 17, 2008, 09:56 PM
Hi Phil,

I admire your enthusiasm, but I talk to Really Smart People who understand CA elections and politics - and the damage to our rights this has a substantial risk of causing.

I think a bunch of the Ron Paul types continue take their flash-in-the-pan momentary trivial successes a few months ago and incorrectly extrapolate that they have some 'special knowledge' of how to win elections.

Sorry.

I don't give a damn about getting something on the CA ballot when:
(1) CA gun politics will get fixed in the courts, and it's under way;
(2) if ballot campaign loses, we get set WAY behind;
(3) there's no chance of getting $60Million to even have a chance of winning.






Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

crkba
July 17, 2008, 10:07 PM
(2) if ballot loses we get set WAY behind

How so. A failed ballot has absolutely no value in the courts for or against. If as you say
(1) CA gun politics will get fixed in the courts, and it's under way.

then a failed ballot does no harm.

Second, if the courts are so darn great how come we are this far behind in the bottom of the ninth (sorry couldn't resist the pun)

Already two post Heller decisions in State courts have quoted Heller in support of gun restrictions. Heller was a two edged sword and scalia reaffirmed that states can restrict all they want under "reasonable". I know how CA lawyers and politicians and courts will interpret resonable and you won't like it. Hell look at DC's response to Heller!

He also said three times in his opinion that restrictions could include "commercial transactions." Thats the first time I've seen that term of art in court findings and its the camel's nose.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I see trial balloons (there goes those puns again) like AB2062 as the way Scalia et al, see the rest of the country going in restricting guns despite his individual rights finding. You rightly excoritate the duck hunters - Scalia is a duck hunter of the first order!

You can have guns, you just can't buy ammo or find a range to shoot on...

crkba
July 17, 2008, 10:16 PM
Bill,

The problem I have with winning in courts is that you don't really win long term. I don't know your politics, and please don't assume mine are "ron paul types", so I don't know what issues to quote as an example but there must be cases where you feel someone twisting a single case in court has tied everyone's hands and stopped "the people" having a say. You feel cheated and resentful. It doesn't lead to good things...

If you can win hearts and minds and get a popular vote for something, then simply use the courts to impose that view on the "elites" who try to ignore it I think better things come down the pike.

I know I'm batting both ways here, I'm trying to "sneak" a const amemd in on a quiet primary and then use the courts to enforce it but hey, the great majority out there don't have our knack for logic and consistency :)

I don't see a downside to a two pronged attack, from above via the scotus and feds, from below by the initiative process.

Cheers
Phil
We're on the same side right?

billwiese
July 17, 2008, 10:23 PM
(2) if ballot loses we get set WAY behind
How so. A failed ballot has absolutely no value in the courts for or against. If as you say

Sorry, my phrasing was bad - I meant if "our cause lost" (i.e, ballot drive lost).



[Quote](1) CA gun politics will get fixed in the courts, and it's under way.


then a failed ballot does no harm.

It emboldens the opposition.

That's why one of the most important support things for Heller was that we got tons of "sense of the legislature", as well as "RKBA is a right" letters from DAs and AGs.


Second, if the courts are so darn great how come we are this far behind in the bottom of the ninth (sorry couldn't resist the pun)

Because it appears you're a noob and haven't been tuned in.

Perhaps you should join Calguns and the NRA?

The CA AW ban will be shot down in 1-2 years. It's already full of holes - I was one of the group of folks that helped put those holes there. The DOJ Firearms Division was downsized to a Bureau because of all the drama.


Already two post Heller decisions in State courts have quoted Heller in support of gun restrictions. Heller was a two edged sword and scalia reaffirmed that states can restrict all they want under "reasonable". I know how CA lawyers and politicians and courts will interpret resonable and you won't like it.

Yes, and those can be appealed. You sound like a Ron Paul type that wants a perfect world instantly.

Heller doesn't allow broad bans of classes of weapons, it affirmed an individual non-collective right and also included mention of 'strict scrutiny'. It spoke favorably of military rifles.

Bright people think Heller is a very good first step. Next is incorporation: that gets us RKBA in California.

All I'm saying is you're all wet and working in the wrong direction.

-Bill

crkba
July 17, 2008, 11:55 PM
Sorry, my phrasing was bad - I meant if "our cause lost" (i.e, ballot drive lost).

Sorry, I still don't get the argument.

What is "our cause?"

Getting "my" gun rights at any cost?

Are you saying I risk exposing that, for want of a better paraphrase, your approach of leveraging the courts to impose rulings that you favor on the population at large isn't actually supported by that population?

I thought we were on the high road and that the silent majority of the population, beaten down by years of those self same tactics from the other side, actually do support you and your use of the courts against a non-representative elite and will demonstrate such support if given the right "cause" to rally behind.

It emboldens the opposition.
Cheers, that one made me laugh so much. Maybe you've been in the trenches so long, fighting so up close with these people (for which by the way I truly do thank you) that you mistake a momentary single back step on their part for a victory. For those of us outside, coming in late, evidently noobs is the term, we hate to tell you but the big picture is that the opposition doesn't need any "emboldening" on our part to quite happily continue their forward march all over us.:(

That's why one of the most important support things for Heller was that we got tons of "sense of the legislature", as well as "RKBA is a right" letters from DAs and AGs.

And exactly how many Californian DA's and AG's were in there?

The DOJ Firearms Division was downsized to a Bureau because of all the drama.
And since July 1st this "downsized" bureau is "so unfortunately" suffering a backlog on issuing authorization letters to out of state FFL's so now its becoming impossible to get them to "go through all the bother" of shipping me a gun to CA.

Now being as interstate commerce is a federal matter how exactly did this organization you so successfully neutered manage to impose regulations on FFL's in other states? I was sure one of those F's stood for Federal. Where's the NRA and CPRA on that one?

And no I didn't miss it because I'm not a member of an approved RKBA organization. For your info I am a life member of NRA, GAO, JPFO, etc, etc., etc. None of them flagged that one.

And please for the final time, get off the Ron Paul Types. Seeing how that organization worked and learning some things was useful to me, it doesn't define me. I voted for him as a statement not because I "stupidly" thought he could win. And no I don't think CRKBA will magically set everything right instantly I'm saying it gives us more ammo... From your responses it seems bashing perceived Ron Paul Types is higher up your list than guns...

See without any help from the anti's we've degenerated into slagging each other off because of our "differences." Its so easy to do and we're so good at it. I'll let you have the last word... promise...:)

Heller doesn't allow broad bans of classes of weapons, it affirmed an individual non-collective right and also included mention of 'strict scrutiny'. It spoke favorably of military rifles.

And most of that is obiter dicta and what isn't is open to the definition of "is" - "broad?" "class?"

All I'm saying is you're all wet and working in the wrong direction.
Thanks, I wondered why I felt so refreshed.:)

See I think we are all working in the same direction, just by different paths. I can throw lots of doubt and FUD about your chosen pathway, see above, but how has that helped either of us against our common foe?

RKBA forces are making the same mistake we made in England, we think the opposition is a monolithic entity of one mind and purpose and that to "win a war" against it we therefore need to impose discipline on "our" troops to present a single face against them: meeting at 3.00pm on the fields of Agincourt tomorrow chaps. No dissent or deviation can be tolerated.

The truth is the opposition is as divided and diverse as we are. They exploit this, they set the duck hunters against the black guns, the handgunners against the rifle guys, the CCW paranoid whack jobs against the black helicopter militia types.

We need to do the same. The right to keep and bear arms is a human right as attested by the Federal Government and its Supreme Court and the government and courts of the majority of the states. Is california willing to stand up and say that it doesn't want its constitution sullied by such "archaic" talk or is it happy to affirm its agreement with the rest of the country. My amendment isn't trying to get it to lead or break new ground, just affirm where we are vis a vis the rest of the country. If it won't do that, I for one would like to know that. Because that means that the powers that be think they are going to lead the rest of the country away from this ridiculous throwback by a fluke 5-4 decision led by some Reagan mistake. It means that, while I hope everything you think is coming down the pike turns out the way you think it will, they are not going to oblige you.

I came to this site via Oleg's Human Right site which I have long admired. That is the way to win hearts and minds and increase support. I'm trying to get an amendment that simply affirms that belief. Yes it can be used by lawyer types to repeal and prevent encroachments on the practicalities of it but we have to have that bedrock to build on.

Gray Peterson
July 18, 2008, 12:21 AM
Lonnie, one of the main aims of this approach is to kill may issue ccw so I'm not adding that clause to the amendment.

That's going to be the real problem. Look, as a policy statement, I don't like the idea of may-issue CCW. Hell, I don't even like the idea of concealed permitting, but do I view concealed carry as a constitutional right? Remember, "bearing" does not mean open carry, not insofar as Heller and similar state analogues.

Over at Calguns.net you'll see a lot of threads of legal planning in regards to CCW. Read the Heller decision as many times as you can.

We'll get shall-issue CCW, but not through the Legislature. We'll get it via striking down PC12031 and PC626.9 and forcing loaded open carry, which will mean the sheriffs will start issuing licenses more freely, or deal with the wrath of anti-gun voters who don't want to see guns openly carried so much, who won't be able to scream to the legislature and tell them to ban open carry ever again.

When we get solid legal victories which declares that California can't just ban "Assault weapons", "high capacity magazines", and so on by the Federal Courts, or even if we don't, then we should entertain a California Constitutional amendment. Not before.

UPDATE/EDIT: Btw, you might be wondering why I'm giving so much advice on a California issue. Several reasons:

1) I live two states north of you, and I was 5 miles away from being a California native where I was born.

2) I have literally dozens of associates and friends in the State of California, and visit them on a yearly basis.

3) I taking the lead, and others here in Washington, turned around this state in terms of dealing with police agencies and local governments in terms of open carry up here.

Gray Peterson
July 18, 2008, 01:19 AM
(BTW, Oregon seems to have RKBA in theirs and some bright folks tell me that theirs really isn't that great, its force is way way diminished to what's essentially a right to musketry - and that Oregon's general progun stance is still just due to the shape of the voter base.)

That's not true. There was an appellate court decision that was decided in 1992 that made that statement of freezing RKBA to guns as kind available from 1859. Of course, keep in mind that this Court of Appeals was basically made up of jurisdiction being Multnomah County only (all other court of appeals have wide swaths of territory, but Multnomah has it's own appeals court jurisdiction) A later state Supreme Court decision from the 2004 overruled that by implication.

See:

http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/lawjournal/37_4_Comments/Rome.pdf

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A109091.htm

crkba
July 18, 2008, 01:51 AM
Hey Lonnie,

I'm a little confused on whether we are agreeing here or not :)

My position is that you should be able to carry open or concealed, loaded or unloaded, or none of the above at your choice without needing anyone's permission or license.

As a notion of etiquette, I make an econometric observation that if you carry openly you increase the risk of everyone around you to being attacked by the bad guy cos he's not going to tackle you!

So if people start carrying openly I have to start carrying openly to level the playing field.

Contrarily, if some small percentage of people carry concealed, or even if they don't but the law says they can, then everyone, whether they carry or not, is made safer because the bad guy doesn't know who is or who isn't so he backs off, maybe finds another way of making money which isn't so risky to him.

So, my position is that no a priori restrictions/licensing etc on people carrying concealed as the public law position makes us all safer and should be desired by even soccer mums who would never carry. If we can educate the nongunny public to this argument I think we could get a positive view of guns adopted by a wider group.

But I'm not going to pass a law which says you shouldn't carry open, I'd just have a lower opinion of someone who does as being rude and uncaring of their neighbors and community (in my ideal community where civic minded people occassionally carry just to keep the bad guys guessing:))

Now, I think what your saying is that long term you have no problem with my position, it may even be yours but for short term tactical reasons, you want CCW to be continued to be perceived by the wider public as somehow "unwholesome" something to be restricted and licensed, however liberally, and you'll get people to begrudgingly accept that CCW stance because you push a totally unacceptable open carry right in their faces by means of court cases. Did I get that right? It doesn't seem right but I couldn't read your post any other way. Help me out here, I'm not trying to be offensive.

Now I know other gunnies who also have a view of CCW, that its not honorable, that good, true, men shouldn't do it, that everyone being armed is the way to go. Is that your position?

The other approach I'm aware of is that open unloaded carry being legal in many places if enough people do it, people get more comfortable with guns and over time we can proceed to free choice of open/concealed, loaded/unloaded, gun/no gun, live and let live, dogs and cats living together, etc. Is that where you are coming from?

I'm not asking to be confrontational, I'm trying to understand the mix of views out there because we need to build a coalition to get numbers. If your going to vote down my proposal which you 90% support but you have a position on the other 10% then I need to know how to address that.

I don't see how I can convince large numbers of people with no exposure or experience with guns to see their presence in society as a net good with arguments which smell to them as tactical moves to secure narrow interests. Open carry per se I don't see them buying, open carry as a ruse to get CCW will make them feel abused/tricked. An argument that a CCW permissive law in and of itself, without them changing their habits or ownership of guns makes them safer could fly. I'm not saying its an easy argument, it requires logic and the ability to see the obvious and the non-obvious and weigh both, etc.

Cheers
Phil

Librarian
July 18, 2008, 04:52 AM
I'm assuming your trying to say I need 50.1% ie a majority of eligible voters?No, exactly as you say, and just as I said You (or anyone) need to get an additional 20.1% of those voting in the election you select to go along with you.50.1 (or 50.01 or whatever more than half number you like) of those voting in the election.

And no, I did not mean that you needed the 'Indian Gaming' initiative marketing to get on the ballot, you need to get that level of effort to get people to vote for it.

Finally, the only group I need to sell it to is gun owners and friends and family of same. I don't need unions or corporations. Good luck with that, partner. That alone shows you have no real idea how to do this.

It's not a personal attack. You're not functioning inside the realm of California politics. 30% is the HIGH estimate for households with guns. Expecting all of them to support the effort is just not real. And those people will NEVER be 50.01% of the votes cast - you MUST market this to the general population, probably with narrowly tailored campaigns for individual population groups.

Here's an example. Pick Compton - there are nice law-abiding people there, who have never seen a gun except in the hands of a cop (whom they, rationally, have learned not to trust) and a gang member (whom they rationally fear). How do you convince those people to support RKBA?

Pick the entire LA area: the TV stations and the newspapers only portray guns in the hands of cops and criminals. If your entire exposure to guns is the images given you by the anti-gun media, you're not going to be persuaded the RKBA is a good idea with logic. What's your plan to overcome years of misinformation and deliberate opinion-shaping? How do you get your message to those voters?

Look at the Secretary of State's site for campaign finance here (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1300585&session=2007). Props 94-97, the gaming initiatives, were supported by 33 million dollars and opposed by 29 million dollars, for a 55.4% to 44.6% win for the props, with ~8.6 million total votes for each proposition.

Where are you going to get 33 million dollars? Indian gaming was easy - it was pretty clearly a fight between two separate business interests, and the public didn't really care.

Gray Peterson
July 18, 2008, 07:22 AM
Hey Lonnie,

I'm a little confused on whether we are agreeing here or not

My position is that you should be able to carry open or concealed, loaded or unloaded, or none of the above at your choice without needing anyone's permission or license.

That's my personal policy choice. I'm a supporter of Alaska-style concealed carry and "gold star" open carry.

As a notion of etiquette, I make an econometric observation that if you carry openly you increase the risk of everyone around you to being attacked by the bad guy cos he's not going to tackle you!

I don't agree with that statement. I might also add that I myself have a Washington State CPL and licenses from several states.

So if people start carrying openly I have to start carrying openly to level the playing field.

There's nothing that says that you HAVE to open carry. You're putting the choice on me, the open carrier, to make me responsible for someone's criminal acts against others.

Contrarily, if some small percentage of people carry concealed, or even if they don't but the law says they can, then everyone, whether they carry or not, is made safer because the bad guy doesn't know who is or who isn't so he backs off, maybe finds another way of making money which isn't so risky to him.

Well, again, concealed carry only doesn't really do that. Criminals are generally stupid, and unless a state passes a shall-issue law with a TREMENDOUS amount of media attention, such as Florida back in 1987, there isn't a huge drop in crime.

So, my position is that no a priori restrictions/licensing etc on people carrying concealed as the public law position makes us all safer and should be desired by even soccer mums who would never carry. If we can educate the nongunny public to this argument I think we could get a positive view of guns adopted by a wider group.

Well, that's the issue, though. It's hard to strike up conversation with a concealed carrier because you generally won't know. Because of my open carrying, I was able to convince dozens of people to apply for their carry permits, some of them from California who moved up here and who didn't even realize that it was legal to carry at all up here (it just wasn't in their experience).

But I'm not going to pass a law which says you shouldn't carry open, I'd just have a lower opinion of someone who does as being rude and uncaring of their neighbors and community (in my ideal community where civic minded people occassionally carry just to keep the bad guys guessing)

You see, my reasons for open carry in Washington would be different from my reasons for open carry down in California. Different situations, different rules. As a Washington resident, I cannot apply for a license in ANY county at all in California, even though I visit frequently.

Now, I think what your saying is that long term you have no problem with my position, it may even be yours but for short term tactical reasons, you want CCW to be continued to be perceived by the wider public as somehow "unwholesome" something to be restricted and licensed, however liberally, and you'll get people to begrudgingly accept that CCW stance because you push a totally unacceptable open carry right in their faces by means of court cases. Did I get that right? It doesn't seem right but I couldn't read your post any other way. Help me out here, I'm not trying to be offensive.

Look, I'm not the one who put in about 200 years of constitutional law on carry. It was the state and federal courts that did that. They were the ones that viewed "bearing arms" as open carry.

Insofar as CCW, I don't want CCW generally to be considered unwholesome. I want may-issue concealed carry, with the racial discrimination issues and equal protection violations, to be considered unwholesome.

Now I know other gunnies who also have a view of CCW, that its not honorable, that good, true, men shouldn't do it, that everyone being armed is the way to go. Is that your position?

Again, I'm not the one that put in the 200 years of court cases that declared it so. Now, just to turn a phrase, I've had a LOT, and I mean, a lot of the "concealed carry only" crowd repeatedly disparage me, the open carry community, and so on, saying that what WE were doing was completely unwholesome, and so on. The biggest believers I've seen of that mindset was in California, especially centered around Orange County.

Go figure that I hear in the news that Sheriff Hutchens (the new sheriff after Mike Carona got hit with a federal corruption indictment) is just going to do it the Sheriff Brad Gates way, refuse to renew CCW's, and just not issue to normal people anymore, those same people that were downing me for open carrying anywhere in this country, with their "I've got my CCW so ha ha", now are going to find themselves defenseless in less than a year. Schaudenfruede is a treat nonetheless.

The other approach I'm aware of is that open unloaded carry being legal in many places if enough people do it, people get more comfortable with guns and over time we can proceed to free choice of open/concealed, loaded/unloaded, gun/no gun, live and let live, dogs and cats living together, etc. Is that where you are coming from?

Generally.

I'm not asking to be confrontational, I'm trying to understand the mix of views out there because we need to build a coalition to get numbers. If your going to vote down my proposal which you 90% support but you have a position on the other 10% then I need to know how to address that.

You're right, the coalition is being built and has been built up over at CalGuns.net. We have a hell of a fight on our hands, we're finally on the offensive in federal court, and the next 2 years are going to be the very key linchpin of that victory. We need a beachhead, a line that the state cannot cross no matter how entrenched the anti-gun forces are in California and how much their state court system reinterprets things.

Right now, out of 36 million people, there are 35,000 CCW holders. That is WAY too few people. I'd feel a lot better if there were 1 or 2 million CCW holders, which would be around the percentage that would be normal for the surrounding states (such as Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington).

I don't see how I can convince large numbers of people with no exposure or experience with guns to see their presence in society as a net good with arguments which smell to them as tactical moves to secure narrow interests. Open carry per se I don't see them buying, open carry as a ruse to get CCW will make them feel abused/tricked. An argument that a CCW permissive law in and of itself, without them changing their habits or ownership of guns makes them safer could fly. I'm not saying its an easy argument, it requires logic and the ability to see the obvious and the non-obvious and weigh both, etc.

That's because in California, the audience for open carry isn't really the general public, it's going to be the sheriff's and police chiefs that literally played god over people's applications, deciding who lives and who dies, for the last 80 years. This is their fault for causing this mess, and it's the Legislature's fault for allowing it to continue. If San Francisco and the bay area counties, Sacramento, and LA/Ventura/San Diego Counties freely issued licenses, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

If they feel tricked, I really don't care. They should start asking their sheriffs why they didn't issue licenses to battered women, gay men who have been targeted for bashings, and so on, to not even cause this in the first place.

socalserf
July 18, 2008, 09:41 AM
I think that this kind of proposal is just the ticket.
Put people who oppose basic human rights on the defensive!
Make them show their true colors. They hate the very idea of freedom and liberty. The very essence of which is a people who own and carry arms.
(The Swiss take their fully automatic rifles to the polls to show that they own the government, and are not sheep to be shorn and consummed at will.)

Use the well proven Ron Paul method of campaigning.
Low cost- high enthusiasum grassroots activism.

We have everything to gain and nothing to lose!
Well done sir!
Thank you for becoming an American, we need more people like you.

ilbob
July 18, 2008, 10:06 AM
I am not sure whether a losing ballot initiative would harm the cause or not. It might get some people more fired up and actually help.

My guess is that the chance of it getting on the ballot is very low in the first place using the approach being suggested.

Getting it passed seems pretty iffy too, but there is probably more of a chance of getting it passed than getting it on the ballot.

Personally, I think you are better off putting your energies into existing efforts, rather than an all or nothing effort.

Just out of curiosity, is there any case of a ballot initiative getting on the ballot where no paid signature gatherers were used and it was basically a few guys in the basement running the thing?

billwiese
July 18, 2008, 02:35 PM
Just out of curiosity, is there any case of a ballot initiative
getting on the ballot where no paid signature gatherers were used
and it was basically a few guys in the basement running the thing?

Nope, not in the last 15+ years.

Even supposedly 'populist' ballot initiatives have $big$money$ backing - be it from huge unions with much to gain or lose, biz/insurance, political parties, "Indian tribes" or tobacco.

In CA, the initiative system used to be a fairly quiet, ordinary way of doing the occasional thing the legislature didn't quite get around to - with the biggest prior-era one being Proposition 13 property tax restrictions in late 70s.

As CA's legislature became progressively more nonfunctional/spendy and impractical, ballot drives became "industrialized". With the imposition of term limits for legislators, legislators needed to throw any legislation together that could 'stick to the wall' for even a moment to get some PR for their next campaign.

These days a state legislator spends most of his time worrying about next election; his staff is the one that actually writes the legislation. I'd say a fair fraction of CA legislators can't even remember the laws they proposed or passed in prior term(s) - let alone specific details. (Hell, Don Perata, queried in 2003 or 04, didn't even remember he'd driven the SB23 generic 'by feature' assault weapons ban bill.)

This was combined with the then-evolving complete irrelevance in CA of the CA Republican party, who (after term limits in late 1990s came into effect) were willing to trade power for minority 'safe seats' in legislature (I guess these guys support "affirmative action".) The CA Rs ended up eschewing Reaganesque minimal effective gov't concepts and instead ended up being driven by a cabal of Orange County Christian "conservatives" that can't acquire or retain any statewide offices in CA beyond local legislative districts due to their perceived religious stench in more educated, more afflluent outer metro suburbs in CA. The only leverage CA Repubs have now is thru the budget process since we have a 2/3s approval vote required for budgets & new taxes.

Because of CA Republican party's overall uselessness & irrelevancy, the CA Dems have moved further to the left, including the state party funding/money structure.

Given this situation for the CA Dems - who are often involved in pie-in-the-sky loo-loo schemes - along with CA Republican irrelevance, the CA ballot initiative arena has become the area for "big retail" politics. There are a list of companies just specializing and making a living doing studies on given subissues for ballot drives. And because of the big money retail nature, I think every ballot drive in recent decade has used professional paid signature gatherers. Remember, not only do you have to get enough signatures on the ballot to qualify, you need to go quite a bit over (20+%) the required count for safety's sake, because some of those will be challenged, will be disqualified, etc.

The increase in CA's gun control efforts can be directly attributed to the decline in CA Republican party's fortunes - in turn linked to some of their crazy (for the area) foci.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

crkba
July 18, 2008, 03:46 PM
Bill,

Thats a great summary of our sorry situation. My only comment is that indeed the retail politics with big money will obviously use the paid gatherer companies (of which there are about five national ones) and so that is what you typically see.

Because that appears to be the way "everyone" does it us small money mom&pops have been perhaps mislead into thinking thats its the ONLY way to do it.

I think my approach is viable and can succeed. I'm desperately trying to find what means they are going to use to stop it and if anyone can point at actual legislation/regs etc where my approach will be cut off I would welcome it - 1) so I can see if I can circumvent it or 2) it may well invalidate my approach and I will stop wasting my and everyone elses time, effort and money. BUT I'm not persuaded simply by the argument that what everyone else has historically done is the only way.

I have sent questions to the AG and the SOS offices to test the signature gatherer/signer relationships which are/aren't allowed and am contacting some county elections offices to see if they have anything which blocks self-gathered signatures.

Bill, if you could ask the very bright connected people you know if they can see how this particular technical approach could be blocked that would be really helpful. Clearly, the gov/officials are not above simply tossing something on some pretense with no backing of the law or regs and say "so sue me." Again, while that means I might fail cos I don't have the money for a lawsuit it gets them on record and such flagrant disregard for due process may get other people to take up the gauntlet at that point. Either way, I don't think I've failed at that point. If there's some pre-existing, established law or reg or court finding which already prevents my approach that's a different matter, fair cop, they've already stitched me up.

I think this is a loophole which is overlooked by the regs and officials because everyone is lulled into the "paper/people/parking lots" mentality. I'm sure they won't like this and will try to block it after we are successful with it.

Cheers
Phil

crkba
July 18, 2008, 03:53 PM
Lonnie,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I now understand your position and where you are coming from and respect it. Which is the right way to go if only one is possible is full of imponderable assumptions about criminal and human psychology and relative densities of people susceptible to the different styles of argument. I say we try 'em both but try not to undermine each others pitch to our respective audiences.

Right now, out of 36 million people, there are 35,000 CCW holders. That is WAY too few people.
But the important number is the latent demand, how many people would apply in a shall-issue California. I'm in Ventura, the sheriff is reportedly fairly pro-issue if you have good cause to cover his ass with the AG, but there's over a year to wait! How many people are there who again are hiding in the woodwork cos they've better things to do that fight this petty officialdom stuff.

With a low threshold of effort for them to actually contribute plus something which addresses their issue, they may come out. Thats what I'm looking for.

Lurkers, if you don't want to go public on a board email me if you think I'm onto something.

Cheers
Phil

ilbob
July 18, 2008, 04:01 PM
The increase in CA's gun control efforts can be directly attributed to the decline in CA Republican party's fortunes - in turn linked to some of their crazy (for the area) foci.
My personal opinion is that the CA republican party died when it tried to become a lite version of the democratic party. If you have no real principles, republicans are not interested in voting for you.

Librarian
July 18, 2008, 04:14 PM
I think this is a loophole which is overlooked by the regs and officials because everyone is lulled into the "paper/people/parking lots" mentality. I'm sure they won't like this and will try to block it after we are successful with it.
Why? So long as the petitions follow the Election Code in format - layout, typeface, spacing - any signature ought to be acceptable.

Get enough, you're on the ballot. It's getting enough that has recently brought in the paid signature-gatherers, and I'm not aware they have a lobby to advocate limiting other ways.

SOS says The number of signatures required for initiative constitutional amendments must be equal to at least 8% of the total votes cast for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. So they further say Number of Signatures Required for an Initiative Constitutional Amendment: 694,354
[8 percent of 8,679,416 (Art. II, 8(b), Constitution)]
For 2009, 2009, 2010. Not likely to change too much after next gubernatorial election. General wisdom seems to be collect 150%-200% of the requirement to allow for the validation process.

(This presumes you jump though all the other hoops required for the initiative before signature gathering begins. Hire a lawyer - not free, but spending some $$ to do it right the first time is confidence building for your supporters. "Whoops, we'll do it better next time" tends to alienate people.)

If you haven't done it yet, see this 2006 thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=189034) and the related threads on that topic.

ilbob
July 18, 2008, 06:16 PM
I think this is a loophole which is overlooked by the regs and officials because everyone is lulled into the "paper/people/parking lots" mentality. I'm sure they won't like this and will try to block it after we are successful with it.
No loophole. The CA SOS's office specifically states this is acceptable.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/initiative_guide.htm

Petition Signatures

Only persons who are registered, qualified voters at the time of signing are entitled to sign the petition. A person can only sign a petition that is being circulated in his or her county of registration. If a petition circulator is a registered voter, he or she may sign the petition he or she is circulating (Sections 102, 105, 9021). Each signer must personally place on the petition his or her signature, printed name, residence address (or physical description of the location if there is no street address), and the name of the incorporated city or unincorporated community (Section 100). None of the above may be preprinted on the petition. Each signer may sign an initiative petition only once (Section 18612).

billwiese
July 19, 2008, 01:47 PM
[quote=bwiese]The increase in CA's gun control efforts can be directly attributed to the decline in CA Republican party's fortunes - in turn linked
to some of their crazy (for the area) foci.

My personal opinion is that the CA republican party died when it tried to become a lite version of the democratic party. If you have no real principles, republicans are not interested in voting for you.

CA is a minority-Republican state, has been for a long time. When CA R's were having better fortunes (i.e, they hadn't shot themselves in the foot) decade or so ago, they could count on some fair number of crossover votes to help out.

But CA Rs keep bringing up issues of abortion/choice in discussion which is a 100% dead losing unwinnable issue in CA, and there's all sorts of 'family' codewords in their speeches which scares a fair fraction of folks who have family members that may be a bit, um, 'nontraditional' in sexual preference.
So not only do CA Rs scare off that 'nontraditional' individual they also scare off a whole buncha his family. Combine that with folks worried about Creationism slipping into public schools (every once in awhile some R looloos vociferously defend some dumb teacher bringing up the Bible in a high school science class) and you can see why folks run scared of 'em.

The biggest demographic the CA Rs have lost is the suburban educated professional homeowner demographic. These folks used to vote quite frequently for CA Rs but ran away when the religious tilt really hit - the CA Rs became so distasteful to their mindset they're willing to pay higher taxes to avoid them. When you have a product like that, the marketing stinks, and in a free economy the marketing managers would be fired.

When the CA Rs lose their perceived religious taint they'll start winning again.
Their leadership doesn't understand that "conservative" is entirely separable from religion. If they return to the Reaganesque message of minimal effective gov't + low taxes they'll get traction back in another decade.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

scrat
July 19, 2008, 02:41 PM
crkba subscribed and support. Im in Monrovia, ca. always work in the simi valley area. keep me informed

crkba
July 19, 2008, 03:13 PM
My thread seems to have been hijacked by Republican and NRA poohbahs decrying the decline of the old days and saying if we just wait a decade everything will be alright...

So I'll stipulate that neither the Dempublicans or the Republicrats will help our cause and being the two sides of the same ruling elite the system is setup so that third parties can't get in and disturb them. Working with in them for reform also seems wasted.

So we have to use whatever levers we can wiggle to try and disturb them and herd them is somewhat the right direction...

One set of levers are the courts and we've been assured that there are plenty of people wiggling those to varying degrees of actual and perceived success. Keep it up guys, I'm with you.

I'm simply proposing that the other set of levers, the initiative process, has some levers that are actually easier to wiggle in the modern internet days, as opposed to the "old" internet days, so we should go and give them a good shake too!

Ilbob and Librarian are now starting to explain things that I've written on my linked pages, we know the numbers, we know that the obvious online guidance documentation and the published election code says that what I'm proposing is apparently valid - thats why I started this exercise.

I've been accused of not planning this out or thinking it through.

Guys, I came to a board with a stated mission to constructively improve things and come up with campaigns. I came to the sub-board where these ideas can be germinated and developed. I came at least six months before I plan to go fully public and start the campaign in earnest, to try and get advice and tips from those with experience in the trenches as to what are the unpublished and not widely known dirty tricks which might be deployed against me, for advice on how to more successfully do all that will need doing. I even harbored some hope of offers to help.

All I've got so far is "It won't work, cos I tried it before and I failed" and "wow thats a big task, how you going to do that all on your own".

Good grief Charlie Brown, where's the can do American spirit that I spent my life saving to emigrate to this country for? Where's the minimal "well I don't think that will work, but boy, if you get it up there I'll download and sign it for you and if it gets on the ballot I'll vote for it but you'll have to excuse me doing any more cos I'm busy with some other stuff thats already underway - say maybe you'd like to help me as well?"

I'll stipulate again to what I wrote in my linked web pages, I'm not asking you or your supporters for money, I'm not asking them for their free time to campaign or solicit. I'm doing something which is minimally disruptive to anything else you guys may be doing. All I was asking was for you to pass along a message across your network of supporters.

I'm asking you now, when it goes ahead will you download, sign and post and will you at minimum mention the website in your email sigs, forum sigs, when jawboning and shooting the breeze will you mention it?

Of the five or so people who've responded I've got one yes, a maybe, and three hell no. On this forum, with its stated goals, out of 13, 000 "active" members...., wow, and they wonder why CA is in the state it is.

There's another thread on this site where people are signing "anonymously" on a web petition site where the petition date has closed and its a petition to nobody just to see if they can get a million signatures and people on this forum are posting "yeah, I signed it" and patting themselves on the back like they've achieved something.

Another thing I've picked up on is that many many people seem to think that CA is one day going to "catch up" with the rest of the nation. "Look, forty states are now shall issue, won't belong now guys..." Now don't get me wrong I think thats great 'n' all but in many cases the NRA is pushing at open doors, taking low hanging fruit. This great and powerful, well endowed organization won't push in CA or DC because "we've no chance of winning there" we need to "save our resources" and "spend them where they can make a difference." The latter means where we can win easily and use it in our ad campaign for more donations.

This is like saying, "Oh there's a break in the lines over there and the enemy is pouring through, so we'll send reinforcements over here where things are less dangerous, don't want to waste them"

Now I'm not proposing that we should re-enact the pointless slaughter of WWI but at some point you have to engage and fight battles which you might lose in order not to lose the greater war.

I don't like to "bash" the NRA, honest (I signed up as a Life time member when I first arrived on these shores), but it seems to me Bill's description of how a parties leadership can lose its way applies to the NRA. I think the NRA has just grown to big and cumbersome. When you are up to your ass in alligators its difficult to remember that your original job was to drain the swamp... industrializing the process of killing alligators, no matter how good you get at it, isn't getting the job done.

The East and West Coast bastions are not waiting to follow the rest of the country. CA is the eight biggest economy in the world on its own... Those who run it and its west coast cousins enact their experiments and trial balloons here before running them out on the rest of the country. If you want to save the country you have to save the "PRK", together these are the bridge and the engine room of the ship of state. Rearranging the deck chairs on the sun-deck isn't going to turn the ship around...

I'm only one person, but I am one. I am not giving up on this, I'll continue to monitor this site and try to respond but this was just my first port of call. You'll probably see me popping up on other sites and forums you frequent. Maybe this just wasn't the right place to plant the first seed...

And if anything I've said has offended anyone I sincerely apologize... we really are on the same side we're just arguing tactics right?

Cheers
Phil

crkba
July 19, 2008, 03:25 PM
Thank you Scrat.

You response crossed with my last one, so just to reiterate, I'm not abandoning this thread but I'm going to start spreading the word elsewhere as well. Gotta get this ball rolling somehow. When I start responding to other people's threads about this when I find a new site/forum/blog instead of initiating my own we'll be good.

Cheers
Phil

Gray Peterson
July 21, 2008, 03:18 AM
My thread seems to have been hijacked by Republican and NRA poohbahs decrying the decline of the old days and saying if we just wait a decade everything will be alright...

1) No one said anything about a decade to push for this petition. Remember, previous attempts to put this on the ballot failed repeatedly.

2) Lawsuits against California laws on incorporation issues with the Second Amendment are going to be decided in the next 6 months at the maximum (Nordyke v. King in the 9th Circuit)

3) I'm currently not bemoaning the Republicans not being in power. I'm not a employee of the NRA.

ilbob
July 21, 2008, 09:36 AM
A thought I posted on another board. I thought it might be appropriate here as well.

It seems to me that there is enabling legislation when a new state enters the union. Logically, part of that enabling legislation might well have been some kind of requirement that the new states abide by the US Constitution.

It may be that the 2A has already been incorporated legislatively and no one realized it.

Not being a lawyer, I am not quite sure how to research such a law. It may be there is a US code that spells this out.

Frank Ettin
July 21, 2008, 11:45 AM
...It seems to me that there is enabling legislation when a new state enters the union. Logically, part of that enabling legislation might well have been some kind of requirement that the new states abide by the US Constitution.

It may be that the 2A has already been incorporated legislatively and no one realized it....
I seriously doubt it.

The doctrine that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states was first stated in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore. The Supreme Court began applying the Bill of Rights to the states piecemeal beginning in the 1890s. I find it hard to believe that in all that time, and in all the litigation involved, everyone just missed an "easy fix."

ilbob
July 21, 2008, 12:57 PM
I find it hard to believe that in all that time, and in all the litigation involved, everyone just missed an "easy fix."
Who knows. One would think someone would have thought of the idea that the CA already incorporates the 2A a long time ago too.

crkba
July 21, 2008, 01:08 PM
Hey, I know we all just hate to play lawyer on the internet but Fiddletown nailed it.
CA's first constitution was after Barron, ie BOR doesn't apply to the states, and its revised constitution, the basis of the current one, was before the 14th and the mongrel incorporation doctrine. So that as they say is "settled law"

Evidently it takes a supreme court level of legal mind to hold two contradictory doctrines in your head and still claim to make logical derivative arguments :confused:

billwiese
July 23, 2008, 02:52 PM
The 2nd Amend/RKBA is not 'incorporated' into California until further resolution in courts.

A very very long shot could be some text in CA's own state constitution, but practically speaking, really the shortest path to incorporation in CA is via the current Nordyke gunshow litigation (which happily wandered from 1st amend issues over to RKBA, partially courtesy of the judge) or the Guy Doe case in San Francisco (gay man in public housing banned from owning a gun).

We also have the new post-Heller attacks in Chicago on their ban, which are somewhat clones of the DC situation, but whose major difference is that they don't occur on Fed-only (Wash DC) territory.

If we get wins in both CA and Chicago, good. If we get a win in one and loss in the other, we happily get "circuit split" which is the very fast track back to the Supremes with the same guys voting the same way.

The near-disastrous Silivera v. Lockyer case - which essentially affirms we DON'T have RKBA in California - did have one hidden happy note: Steven Reinhardt noted that if the 2nd were an individual right, it would indeed have to be 'incorporated' within California.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

ilbob
July 23, 2008, 04:03 PM
The near-disastrous Silivera v. Lockyer case - which essentially affirms we DON'T have RKBA in California - did have one hidden happy note: Steven Reinhardt noted that if the 2nd were an individual right, it would indeed have to be 'incorporated' within California.was that the majority view? or just one judge?

230RN
July 24, 2008, 02:49 AM
I haven't found a sequence numbering requirement in the CA regs yet...

There might or might not be a numbering requirement, but it would probably be a good idea to sequence the responses that you get mailed in anyhow to make it easier to establish an accurate count by the officials.... and you, too. What I'm getting at is if they start at 1 and end at 53128, and all the numbers in between look sequential, there isn't much need to actually count them.

Sequence numbering stamps are available for about $40 at mostlarge Office Supply stores.

You might want to contact Doug Bruce, who almost singlehandedly got the "TABOR" amendment through here in Colorado a couple of years ago. TABOR = Taxpayers' Bill Of Rights, which stopped most tax increases without a direct vote of the people.

Funny thing is to watch the oily politicos squirming and slithering and writhing around to slip tax suppositories into us anyhow. And if Doug Bruce gets a splinter or a hangnail, they all rejoice.

I'm pretty sure he's pro gun and might be able to give you good advice, although he's pretty busy irritating the Colorado State Legislature as a Representative from El Paso County CO. He's a native Californian, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bruce

This is not a very complementary article in Wiki, in fact it's a bit of a hatchet job... which only demonstrates that he's a feisty SOFemale Dog, and is one Don Quixote who actually tilted at and killed a windmill. A favorite character of mine...

... as you can tell.

Home page:

http://www.douglasbruce.com/

I would suggest not contacting him at the State Capitol office, lest all those who would rejoice at his getting a splinter pounce all over him for not doing exclusively State Business at his Capitol office.

Wie ein Held, zum Siegen!

Joe Cool
July 24, 2008, 08:13 AM
I have been watching and reading this thread with great interest in hopes of understanding what will need to happen eventually in NJ. I believe the battles in Illinois and California will teach us all a lot of what needs to happen elsewhere.

Keep up the discussion and of course keep taking 'The High Road' !
Thanks,
Joe

ilbob
July 24, 2008, 09:33 AM
I believe the battles in Illinois and California will teach us all a lot of what needs to happen elsewhere. It would not be a huge surprise to me if the battles in CA and IL largely determine what the scope and breadth of the RTKBA is.

Librarian
July 24, 2008, 05:09 PM
There might or might not be a numbering requirement, but it would probably be a good idea to sequence the responses that you get mailed in anyhow to make it easier to establish an accurate count by the officials.... and you, too. What I'm getting at is if they start at 1 and end at 53128, and all the numbers in between look sequential, there isn't much need to actually count them.Counting isn't the whole issue - validating the signatures against the rolls is another part, so the counties still have to handle some sample from the forms individually. Since forms may contain more than one signature, sequential numbering of forms gets an 'at least' number, but not a 'number valid'.

CA SOS and the counties have this pretty well handled.

SoCalShooter
July 24, 2008, 05:24 PM
Great I will check out the links. BTW check out the calguns people if you have not already.

JKimball
September 9, 2008, 03:55 AM
I love to see Phil's determination to rally the gun owners in California via the internet. It makes perfect sense. I can also appreciate that there are some valid concerns that many here have brought up.

I think I have a suggestion that everybody here could agree on.

Rather than jumping in to a campaign to secure signatures on a petition, lets jump in to a campaign to unite california gun owners. Rather than collecting signatures, collect email addresses. Imagine the potential grassroots power of a database of email addresses of the gun owners of California.

Make it as easy as possible for people to give you their email address. No other identification necessary. No names, addresses, telephone numbers, just an email address. Maybe ask for a zip code too, if it will be helpful for more local battles. This won't even cost people a stamp. When you collect 700,000 email addresses, then you can start getting serious about a petition for an amendment. In the meantime, it will be an excellent tool for good old hammering on the governor and legislators, and the media. It can also be used to encourage people to register to vote.

I think calguns will be a great resource for making this idea possible. Whether the database is kept there, or by crkba, is up to whoever takes it and runs with it. But the people of calguns will be able to make it happen.

I originally posted this relating to Chicago, so substitute calguns and crkba.org where necessary:

1. Make a list of all the stores that sell guns/ammo and all the gun ranges in Cook County (or the entire state.) I assume there is a list available somewhere of FFL dealers. Maybe Ammo manufacturers could also provide lists of their customers.

2. Get on the forum at Illinoiscarry.com and start a thread asking for volunteers to contact the gun stores/ranges. Send out a letter to everybody on the email list at Illinoiscarry.com asking for volunteers. Make assignments until every store is assigned.

3. Provide the volunteers with flyers and forms. (Even if it is only electronic copies that they can print.) This could be as simple as one or two flyers per store that encourages people to add their email to Illinoiscarry.com so they can be notified of demonstrations and events. Provide forms that people can use to fill in their email address at the store. It doesn't even need names on it. I'm picturing each form having space for 25-50 people to write in an email address. Talk to the store manager about getting cashiers and folks at the gun counter to ask people to sign up so they can be notified of grassroots activities. I'd guess that most people that are interested in looking at a pistol would be interested in getting involved to protect (establish?) their carry rights.
Provide pre-addressed, stamped envelopes (stapled to the form so it doesn't get lost) so that when the email list form is filled up the store owner can send it back to someone at Illinoiscarry who can enter it into the system.
Depending on what you can get for a budget, you could possibly provide business card sized handouts or tear off slips of paper pointing people to register at Illinoiscarry. But ideally they would just write down their email address right there.

4. It might even be possible to talk to the people at the big internet stores (cdnn, brownells, cheaper than dirt, etc.) and see if they would be willing to send out a mass email to Illinois resident customers encouraging them to register at the Illinoiscarry site.

5. Contact the NRA to see if they can send an email to Illinois residents pointing them to the site.

6. I noticed on the forum at Illinoiscarry there is a discussion about putting an ad on a billboard in Chicago. That is a great idea and a very realistic way to get the word out to gunnies and non-gunnies alike. And you don't have to rely on the media or worry that it won't be presented how you want it. Once you find a good billboard and get a price, send out a mass email to the hopefully increasing base of supporters and tell them the plan and the cost and ask for donations, nothing is too small. When you get the billboard in place, take a picture of it and email it out to everybody to show them their dollars at work.

Do the trains in Chicago have advertisements in them? Maybe that is another viable option.

7. Send out an email to the base of supporters encouraging them to get their gunny friends on the list. None of them should have any gunny friends that don't know about the site.

8. Start planning now for next year's rally. Keep people posted with a monthly email and weekly emails in the month or two prior to the event.

9. Find a local Chicago celebrity/athlete who is pro-gun who will come out to the rally. That will increase chances of media coverage dramatically.

Someone out there needs to lead these efforts. I don't know how Illinoiscarry is organized, if there is a president who can delegate or nominate someone to this. For all I know there is already somebody working on it. If anybody knows who that is, maybe pass these thoughts on along to him/her.


I went to a gun expo in California a year or two ago and was blown away by how huge the crowd was. I'm convinced there are enough gun owners out there. They just need to make their voices heard.

If you enjoyed reading about "California RKBA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!