CA SB1140 and SB 1152 VETOED!!!


PDA






Ewok
September 20, 2004, 09:37 PM
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 1152 without my signature.
This bill proposes an ammunition registration process that has already been considered
and rejected by the federal government when they repealed a substantially similar law
citing it was simply unworkable and offered no public safety benefit. In addition, no
other state collects information on ammunition sales or purchasers. Forensic testing of
ammunition used in a crime is the most effective way of tracing criminal activity.
For these reasons I am returning this bill without my signature.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

-----

To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 1140 without my signature.
California’s laws already impose strict liability on gun owners who allow a child to
access their firearm. Ensuring firearms are stored properly is an important public health
goal and that is why I support the current criminal storage laws. The additional firearm
storage restrictions proposed by SB 1140 are vague and unnecessary to our criminal
justice system.
Strict liability is the most stringent legal liability theory available and only five other
states beside California currently impose such a harsh penalty. This bill would further
expand the liability to situations that cannot be easily defined and thereby provides no
guidance to a person as to how to avoid criminal penalties. Such ambiguity in the law
invites arbitrary enforcement and judicial review.
Unfortunately, this bill does more to confuse an already complicated area of the law than
to protect children. Before a government exercises its power to take away one’s liberty,
it should be clear to every person what actions will cause them to forfeit their freedom.
Instead of adding to the lengthy and complex area of firearm laws, a reorganization of the
current laws should be undertaken to ensure that statutes that impose criminal penalties
are easily understandable.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

If you enjoyed reading about "CA SB1140 and SB 1152 VETOED!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
joe sixpack
September 20, 2004, 09:45 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised.

cheers, ab

R.H. Lee
September 20, 2004, 10:13 PM
Those are reasonable decisions, and good news. Now, where are all the kneejerk reactionaries who were screaming "nazi" and "I hope Kalifornistan slides into the ocean" after he signed the .50 legislation? :rolleyes:

El Rojo
September 20, 2004, 10:37 PM
I sort of figured he would let AB50 go through so he could retain his "assault weapons" stance, but I had a feeling he would at least reject the ammo bill. Sure if he was great he would have vetoed AB50, but at least we got 2 of 3. This is indeed good news for **********ns. Time to write a semi-thank you.

Brett Bellmore
September 20, 2004, 10:47 PM
So he's only in favor of clear, workable forms of oppression. That's something, I suppose.

deej
September 20, 2004, 11:01 PM
I'm surprised as well; I thought his early signing of AB50 was a one-fingered salute to the entire gun-owning community.

Sergeant Sabre
September 20, 2004, 11:05 PM
Those are reasonable decisions, and good news. Now, where are all the kneejerk reactionaries who were screaming "nazi" and "I hope Kalifornistan slides into the ocean" after he signed the .50 legislation? :rolleyes:

Hello! I'm right here. Sink that thing into the sea. The only way to fix it is to flush it all away...

Librarian
September 20, 2004, 11:35 PM
Gotta be aware of the boat people, though. If they shoot back, let'em land.

atek3
September 20, 2004, 11:37 PM
thats great news

mcmoyer
September 20, 2004, 11:52 PM
Finally some good news from California!!

BradN
September 21, 2004, 12:55 AM
AB 50 was a blow. But remember that Gray Davis would have signed these bills in a second. There has been progress.

MaceWindu
September 21, 2004, 01:31 AM
:D :D :D :D

Keep da AMMO comin!!!!


MaceWindu

CGofMP
September 21, 2004, 02:30 AM
*AMAZED*

Well I'll be a son of a B...female dog.. In heat!

I do not even believe this... wow. I am so astonished I can not put words to it... Guess he is only 1/2 RINO.

Gotta be aware of the boat people, though. If they shoot back, let'em land.

Lets make a pact, first shots are not to be shot AT the person... ie: You miss me, I'll miss you.

http://norcalprecision.com/images/gunpics/gunincase.jpg

Drjones
September 21, 2004, 03:09 AM
Good lord, that is so awesome.

At least the man hasn't totally lost it.

I really do have HUGE amounts of respect for him because of what he's made of himself, having started from NOTHING, but he sure took himself down more than a few notches with AB50.

Since he is clearly open to reasoned arguments about gun control laws, why couldn't he apply similar brain power to AB 50?

Why does it make a molecule of sense to ban something that has never been directly used in the commission of a crime??? :confused: :banghead:


Question: Can he repeal bills that he's signed, or is that up to the legislature and that whole commie-fest?

Drjones
September 21, 2004, 03:10 AM
And who are the boat people?:scrutiny: :confused:

stv
September 21, 2004, 04:48 AM
Pleasantly surprised here, too. Time to write the man another letter.

S_O_Laban
September 21, 2004, 05:17 AM
There are obviously reasons why he signed the 50 bill and vetoed the others. Pehaps someone like Jim March can comment on the polictical immpact of what Arnold has done and why he did what he did. It seems like common sense to have also returned the 50 bill so why didn't he. Many of his arguments for not signing the others would have fit it also. There is more here than mets the eye:D

RealGun
September 21, 2004, 06:20 AM
If there was reasoned protest over signing AB50, maybe it did some good.

Sergeant Bob
September 21, 2004, 07:50 AM
Calling this a win is like putting $100 in a slot machine, and getting $66 back.

Langenator
September 21, 2004, 08:27 AM
I wonder if the sh*tstorm I'm sure he caught from the gun-owning public over AB50 had anything to do with him vetoing these bills?

El Rojo
September 21, 2004, 10:48 AM
Very good theory Langenator. It is possible some people got really mad at him and he listened and decided the other bills would most certainly sink him.

I think it is something else. We have a guy who said he supports the AWB. So he gets a new gun he can add to it and be consistent with his thing about the AWB. Keep in mind he is still in California and most Californians think AWs are very, very bad. He has to give them a little something or they are going to boot him out of office, plus he wants to maintain what he said about AWs. He has to pass AB50. He doesn't have a choice.

Now the conservative side of him takes hold, plus the fact that if the ammo thing would have passed, I think it would have been the straw that broke the camels back. So he vetos those bills. Sure the .50 BMG owners of the PRK are upset and their purist brothers, but a vast majority of Californians are not like us, so he can afford to piss off the AW crowd while keeping the shotgunning community indifferent to those big expensive rifles.

This is just my analysis. It doesn't mean I like it, but that is the way politics work. We knew what Arnold had said about AWs before we elected him. No one should be surprised about AB50. I think the veto of these other two is a good sign. In this state this is a major triumph.

We need the .50 FUCA now more than ever!

redhead
September 21, 2004, 11:25 AM
Question: Can he repeal bills that he's signed, or is that up to the legislature and that whole commie-fest?

No, the governor cannot repeal a law that's been passed by the legislature and signed by him (or a previous governor). The legislature has to do it, and given the make-up of this legislature, it ain't gonna happen.

I'd called my senator prior to his vote on SB1152 and expressed by wish for him to vote against it, knowing that it was a futile gesture. I got a letter from his office, thanking me for calling, saying he voted aye, and pointing out that we disagreed on the issue (big "duh" and putting it mildly) and he hoped that I would continue to contact his office in the future with my viewpoints. Um hm. For all the good it will do, and as if he cared. I will do it, however, just so that I can't complain about gun owners sitting on their posteriors, and just to let the duly elected jerks know that not all of us are in lock-step out here.

Lobotomy Boy
September 21, 2004, 11:42 AM
The ban on .50 caliber firearms has nothing to do with crime. There is only one thing the government has to fear from such weapons and that is the possibility that such weapons would be turned on government forces in the event of an insurrection. In normal conditions a .50 caliber firearm is nothing but a very expensive piece of sporting equipment. In the event of an insurrection a .50 caliber gun is a very formidable piece of weaponry.

Because of this I would argue that bans on .50 caliber firearms do more to undermine the intent of the Second Amendment than the late AWB.

GhostRider-Nine
September 21, 2004, 12:00 PM
Those are reasonable decisions, and good news. Now, where are all the kneejerk reactionaries who were screaming "nazi" and "I hope Kalifornistan slides into the ocean" after he signed the .50 legislation?

I did not call him a Nazi, BUT....I guess in your mind this makes it OK that he signed the 50 ban? A ban passed by an illegal "ghost vote." This is just all part of the slippery slope. I doubt that the other two bills were even important to the anti's. They just wanted to throw out 3 bills to Arnold, knowing that he would probably sign the one that would offend the least amount of gun owners. Now, how can I say "screw them all" while taking the High Road? And BTW, I still hope southern KA slides into the Pacific. ;)

rl2669
September 21, 2004, 12:11 PM
Its a nice gesture on Ahnold's part, but from what I see of PRK politics a veto override will be trivial to accomplish.

With respect to AB50, has anyone actually read the thing? It looks to me like it bans the 50 BMG cartridge by its measurements, but not any 50 "calibre", not 50AE, and not shall-we-say a wildcat alternative. Is anybody thinking about an appropriate "adaptation" :evil:

Rob

redhead
September 21, 2004, 01:21 PM
Its a nice gesture on Ahnold's part, but from what I see of PRK politics a veto override will be trivial to accomplish.

The legislature does not yet have a veto-proof majority, but they're working on it. As to trying to override these vetoes, I don't know that they'll try it. It took several votes to get these bills passed. Now, I don't know how they can do that, but they do. If a bill fails on a first vote, then it's try try try again until they get it passed. Maybe someone who knows about the inner workings of the CA state legislature can explain this.

jnojr
September 21, 2004, 01:40 PM
If a bill fails on a first vote, then it's try try try again until they get it passed.

Yeah... try try again with ghost voting. It's amazing how the tide turns...

Jim March
September 21, 2004, 02:08 PM
Well here's what it means.

We have proof of what I've been saying for a while now: Arnold (via his staff of course) is LISTENING TO US.

He's not agreeing with us 100% but lemme tell ya, back in the Davis days we had NO channels of communication into his office. Zero, nada, zip. Well....I sorta take that back, because when Assemblyman Rod Wright was still in office Wright served as an unofficial backchannel into Davis' ear. But it was a "low bandwidth" connection, we could get Wright to pass tidbits here and there, not pages of policy research in organized form. And Wright left in 2002 I think(?) at which point we were completely SOL.

So Arnold is listening.

OK.

Very cool.

Now let's give him something to listen TO.

Expect big news later today that I've been waiting on until I hear about these bills.

Bruce H
September 21, 2004, 02:39 PM
In the real world of politics I can see his reason for signing AB50. The language is ambiguous at best. It gives him a little breathing room with the idiots. As to the ones he vetoed. They affect everyone in the population. By turning them down he helped a larger portion of the population. The AB50 thinking could also be since they aren't cheap by any standard a small minority of shooters will be affected. There is also time to buy one before the law takes effect. There was no reason for it but given the political climate in California, I can understand it.

Librarian
September 21, 2004, 04:12 PM
Who are the boat people?
Sink that thing into the sea.
Refugees from the sinking.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 21, 2004, 05:43 PM
He may not be a Nazi but he went on record saying he admired Adolf Hitler. It was during the filming of Pumping Iron. Yes, he was younger, etc., but there is no justification for such a statement.

He also told a crowd in Austria that he would always consider himself an Austrian. Curious, since not only is he an American, but also has the desire to be prez.

But we knew what we were getting. While campaigning in Kal he stated we needed to close the gun show loophole. There is no gun show loophole. He was just parroting the press.

The man does what he considers to be politically expedient. That does not bode well for the 2nd amendment.

I don't care what he's accomplished in his business life. A RINO is nothing but a ......... RINO.

Firethorn
September 21, 2004, 06:04 PM
I remember that they went back and found the actual transcriptfor the Adolf comment.

What was printed:
"I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

Found in the transcript:
"I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it," the quote read, according to Butler.

The second is like saying Kennedy's a great politician. Sure, maybe, but I don't agree with what he does with it.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/schwarzenegger.hitler/)

PinnedAndRecessed
September 21, 2004, 06:10 PM
I saw it in the movie. He said he admired Hitler. The reporter (it was a documentary filmed back in my body building days) seemed surprised. The reporter asked for a clarification. Yes, Arnie said it was because Hitler arose from nothing to what he became.

But, given as how Arnie's dad served in the German army in WW2, and given as how my dad served in Patton's third army in WW2, I don't believe I'd like such an one as gov or prez.

FNFiveSeven
September 21, 2004, 06:33 PM
AB50. It's amazing how quickly the clamoring masses can be silenced when they're thrown a consolation prize. :rolleyes:

txgho1911
September 21, 2004, 06:38 PM
I think my neigbors next door have a problem with dead people voting in general elections.
And now the people of california see ghosts voting in the state legislature.
Is there any video or other documented proof to support a suit against Arnold for signing illegal legislation?
Maybe a suit would not be viable. Maybe a list of critters skitering to and fro bumping the buttons for absent reps.

RKCheung
September 21, 2004, 06:55 PM
Too bad, I wish he had signed them. It's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better (if it ever does). Might as well get it over with.

At the very least it would serve as a wake-up call for the "They ain't after my pappy's shotgun" folks out there.

Knuckle_Dragger
September 21, 2004, 07:42 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but Ahnold did NOT VETO these bills! He simply and I quote "...return(ed) this bill ... without (his) signature."

I believe not signing and vetoing are different.

Drjones
September 21, 2004, 07:56 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but Ahnold did NOT VETO these bills! He simply and I quote "...return(ed) this bill ... without (his) signature."

I believe not signing and vetoing are different.


You are incorrect.

A veto is precisely that: refusing to sign a bill.

Brett Bellmore
September 21, 2004, 08:23 PM
Not at the federal level, as I recall. If the President does not afirmatively veto a bill within ten days, if the legislature is in session at the time, it becomes law. It's only if the ten days expire while the legislature is in recess that not signing it amounts to a veto.

In the People's Republic, it's complicated. (What else?)
"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 4 LEGISLATIVE


SEC. 10. (a) Each bill passed by the Legislature shall be presented
to the Governor. It becomes a statute if it is signed by the
Governor. The Governor may veto it by returning it with any
objections to the house of origin, which shall enter the objections
in the journal and proceed to reconsider it. If each house then
passes the bill by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds
of the membership concurring, it becomes a statute.
(b) (1) Any bill, other than a bill which would establish or
change boundaries of any legislative, congressional, or other
election district, passed by the Legislature on or before the date
the Legislature adjourns for a joint recess to reconvene in the
second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session, and
in the possession of the Governor after that date, that is not
returned within 30 days after that date becomes a statute.
(2) Any bill passed by the Legislature before September 1 of the
second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session and
in the possession of the Governor on or after September 1 that is not
returned on or before September 30 of that year becomes a statute.
(3) Any other bill presented to the Governor that is not returned
within 12 days becomes a statute.
(4) If the Legislature by adjournment of a special session
prevents the return of a bill with the veto message, the bill becomes
a statute unless the Governor vetoes the bill within 12 days after
it is presented by depositing it and the veto message in the office
of the Secretary of State.
(5) If the 12th day of the period within which the Governor is
required to perform an act pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of this
subdivision is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the period is extended
to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday."

Bottom line, though: Returning the bill without a signature is HOW a Governor of California vetos a bill. If he just hangs onto it, and doesn't sign it, it becomes law automatically.

El Rojo
September 21, 2004, 10:31 PM
For those of you asking about an alternative to the .50 BMG.

The PRK Legal .50 FUCA (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101724)

Ironbarr
September 21, 2004, 11:06 PM
It isn't April Fool's Day already, is it?

Not to be a smart-donkey, but is/are there any links/citations?

deej
September 21, 2004, 11:37 PM
It isn't April Fool's Day already, is it?

Not to be a smart-donkey, but is/are there any links/citations?



To what? Arnold's vetoes?

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes/SB_1140_veto.pdf

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes/SB_1152_veto.pdf

Ironbarr
September 22, 2004, 12:30 AM
Thank you, deej. I appreciate your response.

Sounds like - well - at least a good deal considering what he could have done.

There was a time I thought Kali was the place to live - it didn't happen that way - life being what it can be. Must be frustrating.

-Andy

Jim March
September 22, 2004, 12:43 AM
Now let's see what he does with SB89 (ferret legalization) :D.

RealGun
September 22, 2004, 05:36 AM
Hmm. When does CA legalize anything except issues appealing to liberals? BTW, I lived in So. CA for 5 years and will consider no plan to return. I have since owned 3 ferrets as a matter of fact.

feedthehogs
September 22, 2004, 10:22 AM
Now, where are all the kneejerk reactionaries who were screaming "nazi" and "I hope Kalifornistan slides into the ocean" after he signed the .50 legislation?

Right Here.

Most don't own or can't afford the 50 so it really was no big deal to ya all. People don't tend to be concerned about things that don't affect them.

My understanding of Arnold's letters stating why he turned down the ban on ammo and gun storage was one, the law would not accomplish anything and two the current laws were good enough.

This is just normal thinking to inacting laws. No where did he state that the laws would violate the second amendment or gun owners rights. That would be a true sign of gun owner support.

I think Californians have been raked over the coals so long that any smigen of water thrown to them is a cause for celebration.

Its been a long road of compromise that ya all seem to rejoice about.
I don't get it.

I may not live in California, but I do donate money to organizations out there to fight these silly laws.

redhead
September 22, 2004, 10:56 AM
I'm not exactly rejoicing, myself. I know that Arnold didn't veto these bills to support gun owners - he did it for reasons as stated by feedthe hogs. That being said, I'm glad he did as it means I won't have to drive to Nevada to buy ammo without being fingerprinted like a criminal.

However, the war against the 2nd amendment is being won in California by the strategy of incrementalism. I am under NO illusions that it won't get worse year by year. I am absolutely certain there will be a whole new crop of anti-gun anti-freedom legislature popping up next legislative session.

California has no RTKBA in its Constitution, but I don't think that it would make a lot of difference if it were there. No branch of the government is, in practice, constrained by any such documents and their contents. They only hide behind the constitution when it serves their purposes.

I've been bothered for a very long time by the fact that every year we are compelled to contacted our elected "representatives" practically begging them not to trample on our rights any more than they already have. And each year, we win a battle or two, and lose a few more. The end result is a net loss, and we're relieved (I wouldn't say happy, speaking for myself) that things didn't get as bad as they could have.

However, the legislature meets every year...

RealGun
September 22, 2004, 11:23 AM
California has no RTKBA in its Constitution, but I don't think that it would make a lot of difference if it were there. No branch of the government is, in practice, constrained by any such documents and their contents. They only hide behind the constitution when it serves their purposes.

It makes a big difference. In CA you have no case before the State Constitution. There are lots of differences in other States. It does matter. If in District Court, you were to successfully challenge CA withholding the RKBA, you would see a tremendous change, which would ripple through the entire country. That is the key to stopping further erosion of your rights. Don't back away from what really needs to be done. Courts aren't cooperating because no one is asking a direct, technically correct question and in a manner that isn't more than a lame attempt to duck some criminal liability on other grounds.

redhead
September 22, 2004, 11:35 AM
The reason I say that not having a RTKBA in the California making much of a difference is because of court decisions here. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the 2nd amendment is a collective, not an individual right. The Supreme Court has not been eager to hear 2nd amendment cases.

Now, I don't know how the state courts here would rule if there were a RTKBA in the state constitution, but the federal courts aren't ruling in favor of individual 2nd amendment rights. I'm not speaking of federal courts in other parts of the US, just to clarify here.

I'm not giving up, though. I will support the continuing effort to get the RTKBA in the state constitution. I've just gotten increasing cynical over the years, watching this legislature in action.

R.H. Lee
September 22, 2004, 12:27 PM
Hey, Mr. Sergeant Sabre in Lansing MI, check this out:
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2004-SB-1381 :neener:

GhostRider-Nine
September 22, 2004, 12:29 PM
Sounds like - well - at least a good deal considering what he could have done.

As long as the anti's can keep firearm owners thinking like that, they have won. BTW, I in no way mean this as a flame, it is just an observation of a way of thinking.

RealGun
September 22, 2004, 12:37 PM
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the 2nd amendment is a collective, not an individual right. The Supreme Court has not been eager to hear 2nd amendment cases.

To what case are you referring? I would like to review it.

The Supreme Court has turned away cases on technicalities, but they can be beaten at that game, if their excuses (or rules) are anticipated. A direct confrontation, such as challenging the Brady Bill, had its successes, with part of the bill struck down.

TimRB
September 22, 2004, 01:23 PM
"As long as the anti's can keep firearm owners thinking like that, they have won."

Do you think Gray Davis would have hesitated to sign all three pieces of legislation? Cruz Bustamante?

Tim

redhead
September 22, 2004, 01:25 PM
RealGun, I'm talking about Silveira v. Lockyer. I used to have a copy of the decision downloaded, but I've been through a couple of hard drives since them. The decision made it clear that the judges believed the 2nd amendment did not guarantee an individual right. I'll see if I can find it online.

FNFiveSeven
September 22, 2004, 01:27 PM
I have a copy of it, I can email it to you if you like, but I don't know which address to send it to.

redhead
September 22, 2004, 01:37 PM
Article about Silveira v. Lockyer:

9th Circuit: Gun Ownership Not a Personal Right (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1039054410124)

At law.com

redhead
September 22, 2004, 01:45 PM
I found a link to the decision:

Silveira v. Lockyer (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement)

GhostRider-Nine
September 22, 2004, 02:25 PM
Do you think Gray Davis would have hesitated to sign all three pieces of legislation? Cruz Bustamante?

Does it make any difference in the long run if anti gun bills are passed one at a time, or three at a time? It doesn't to me. Arnold just lost ALL of my support.....for not only signing AB50, but for doing so after being informed that it was passed by an illegal ghost vote. But at least they didn't come after shotguns....YET.

RealGun
September 22, 2004, 02:42 PM
Silveira v Lockyer reads like it begs to be further appealed. Was it? The way I read it, it IS the line in the sand. It makes direct reference to the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment. That's a dare if there ever was one.

BB62
September 22, 2004, 02:43 PM
JIM MARCH,

You've had me on the edge of my seat since yesterday, when you posted "Expect big news later today that I've been waiting on until I hear about these bills."

Is there something else??

Please tell us - I can't hold my breath any longer!


BB62

ClonaKilty
September 22, 2004, 02:59 PM
Silveira v Lockyer reads like it begs to be further appealed. Was it?

Oh yeah, dude, it was. Earlier this year (or was it late last year?). And SCOTUS refused to hear it. The Brady Campaign, the so-called "VPC" and other anti-civil rights groups claimed the refusal as "upholding" the Silveira decision. Which of course, it didn't, but it didn't help the gun rights movement either.

I'm sure if you did a search here on THR for "Silveira" earlier this year you'd find a thread or two on it.

45R
September 22, 2004, 03:31 PM
Glad they were vetoed. THR members in CA would be suffering from a stint of tendonitis from all the fingerprinting! :scrutiny:

jefnvk
September 22, 2004, 03:43 PM
THe Michigan has bouncing around for a few weeks somewhere. Supposedly the head of the Judicial comittee is anti-gun control (thats what I've been told), so it probably won;t make it out.

Can the legislature can overturn the veto? How does that work in CA? If they can, whats the possibility?

Brett Bellmore
September 22, 2004, 03:46 PM
The Supreme Court has turned away cases on technicalities, but they can be beaten at that game, if their excuses (or rules) are anticipated.

What "excuses"? They turn down the cases without any comment, generally.

There are essentially two, and only two, ways the Supreme court is going to take a 2nd amendment case:

1. If one of the circuit courts issues a seriously pro-gun ruling, striking down gun control laws as unconstitutional. NOT an Emerson style ruling, making the right noises, but giving the win to the other side. So that the Court has to take the case, or let a significant part of the population have their rights back.

or,

2. A serious change in the composition of the court. Either to the point where they're so rabidly anti-gun they want to take the cases so they can kill the 2nd amendment personally, instead of delegating the dirty work to the circuit courts, or where they're sufficiently pro-gun that they're willing to turn things completely upside down, and overthrow all the nation's gun control laws in the cause of legal principle.

Ewok
September 22, 2004, 04:32 PM
Can the legislature can overturn the veto? How does that work in CA? If they can, whats the possibility?

The usual 2/3 votes. SB1152 passed the assembly 41 to 38, so it's dead. SB1140 passed 41 to 34, with 3 of the missing or abstaining members being among those who voted against 1152. Both bills passed the senate 21 to 15.

Jim March
September 22, 2004, 04:35 PM
Remember, there was a THIRD veto earlier: SB1177.

BB62: you mean this?

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102840

RealGun
September 22, 2004, 05:09 PM
KABA article on Silveira v Lockyer denial (http://keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.asp)

No doubt many have read this, but revisiting it ties in directly to more than one active thread.

Jim March
September 22, 2004, 05:41 PM
My detailed critique of Silveira:

http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm

sawhitt
September 22, 2004, 06:18 PM
At least he's showing a little sense here.

I'm waiting for the .499 Screw Arnold to go into production.

BB62
September 22, 2004, 06:29 PM
Jim March,

If that link is what you were referring to in your post on this thread, then that must be it!


BB62

TimRB
September 22, 2004, 07:01 PM
"Does it make any difference in the long run if anti gun bills are passed one at a time, or three at a time? It doesn't to me. Arnold just lost ALL of my support"

Fair enough, but here's your future: You will pick a solid pro-gun candidate and vote for him. Because this is California, he will lose by a large margin. Instead, we will get a democrat or RINO governor. The demo will sign any anti-gun piece of legislation that reaches his desk. The RINO will be a loose cannon, signing some and vetoing others.

Tim

RealGun
September 22, 2004, 07:19 PM
americanminutemen.org seems to be having an identity crisis. Reinhardt may have made a mess of Silveira, but the Pledge decision was entirely consistent with constitutional conservatism. The problem with being a purist is that we won't be comfortable with some decisions but will be obliged to understand them according to our general philosophy. If we become too selective, we have no philosophy.

While they state that they are not going to be done in over differences in regard to abortion, they have no problem siding with social conservatives on the Pledge issue. They should stick to their knitting. I was really attracted to the concept of that site until I read the Action alert on the Pledge issue. I am in conflict because of following closely the issues raised by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

It's unfortunate that everything Reinhardt does is going to be picked on. Nevertheless, I think impeaching him is entirely appropriate based upon Silveira alone. Had that case succeeded, I believe AB50 would never have come up.

GhostRider-Nine
September 22, 2004, 08:01 PM
Fair enough, but here's your future: You will pick a solid pro-gun candidate and vote for him. Because this is California, he will lose by a large margin. Instead, we will get a democrat or RINO governor. The demo will sign any anti-gun piece of legislation that reaches his desk. The RINO will be a loose cannon, signing some and vetoing others.

And the little froggy will continue to swim in water that is getting hotter and hotter....heaven forbid it gets to hot all at once and the frog jumbs out. I have said it once and I will say it again...if you vote for the lessor of two evils, you get just what you deserve. And if Arnold is not a RINO, I don't know who is.

TimRB
September 22, 2004, 11:36 PM
In California, it's an ugly political battle, plain and simple. One can fight it intelligently, taking hits and occasionally getting victories, or one can stomp around demanding "2A-all-the-way-or-the-highway" and lose every single time.

Even though I know damn well no one will do this, I suggest going to the California Secretary of State's web site and downloading the voter statistics. Put them into a spreadsheet and plot them. Since 1922 or so there has been a steady decline in the percentages of voters who declare themselves Republicans and Democrats, and in the past 30-40 years there has been a steady increase in "others". The voter demographics in this state have been changing for a long time, and if the trends continue the Democrats may not clearly be in power in 5 or 10 years.

Join the CRPA, stay informed, VOTE, donate whatever you can...

Tim

Edit: Oops, I don't mean 1922. I mean around 1935-39.

RealGun
September 23, 2004, 07:01 AM
My detailed critique of Silveira: - Jim March

I think the Court should at least be challenged for a comment. It seems arrogant, disrespectful, and confrontational to waste the investment in due process and then not get it or any guidance for the future. If their was any basic judicial reform, a fundamental response would be mandatory even as token due process.

RealGun
September 23, 2004, 07:19 AM
duplicate

RealGun
September 23, 2004, 07:22 AM
duplicate

Jim March
September 23, 2004, 04:32 PM
I'm not going to talk about the rest of that site, I was discussing that one article by me and I stand by that :).

Jim March
September 23, 2004, 04:52 PM
I'm not going to talk about the rest of that site, I was discussing that one article by me and I stand by that :).

Jim March
September 23, 2004, 04:57 PM
I'm not going to talk about the rest of that site, I was discussing that one article by me and I stand by that :).

kevin993
September 23, 2004, 05:19 PM
Arnold is the man. :cool:

Jim March
September 24, 2004, 03:19 AM
"The Man"? Well....not exactly. He doesn't completely suck :) and he listens to us. But he's capable of making mistakes.

OK. We're better off with him versus Davis, by a big margin. Tom McClintock would have been better, but Tom never had a chance and nothing any of us could have done would have changed that.

(Speaking of which: Shelley can't get elected dogcatcher any more, so let's have Tom run for SecState in '06? Unless he can find something better before then. Tom's rep for honesty is impeccable, for good reason...he's just what we need in that slot. Or the controller's slot mebbe...)

Sawdust
September 24, 2004, 11:07 AM
Heh. Shelley sure stepped in it, didn't he?

I thought that I heard that McClintock was eyeing the Lt. Governor slot?

Sawdust

If you enjoyed reading about "CA SB1140 and SB 1152 VETOED!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!