Californians Plan Anti-Legislation Protest


PDA






ronwill
April 27, 2008, 09:58 AM
I wish these guys well and hope they get a large showing. Looks like some have finally gotten fed up and are fighting back.

http://www.crpa.org/showpages.aspx?pid=1410

If you enjoyed reading about "Californians Plan Anti-Legislation Protest" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TooTaxed
May 2, 2008, 08:12 PM
Good for them! Not enough protest is being done...

TraderJack
May 2, 2008, 09:45 PM
I sent them an email to show my support of their cause. I hope they have a good turnout.

SoCalShooter
May 4, 2008, 04:42 PM
Wish I could go but thats not going to be possible.

dvcrsn
May 4, 2008, 11:36 PM
Socalshooter, there is a very good way that you can help--go to the legislation portion of www.calnra.com and use the one touch system to send emails to everyone.

Yellowfin
May 5, 2008, 06:57 PM
Also something you can do is join Californians for Concealed Carry Rights on Facebook and Myspace, and get everyone you know to do the same. Links are in my sig. Here's our mission statement.
Every day politicians, celebrities, bags of cash, valuable works of art, warehouses full of goods, and important places are protected with armed guards. Why? They're valuable. So is the everyday person like you and me. We have families. We have friends. Our lives are just as valuable and equally worth protecting. The right to do so is respected and almost everywhere these days, and is even available to Californians when outside their own state. This is a basic human right.

Yet for millions of Californians this right is outrightly denied the moment they step out their doorstep near their own home.

In the vast majority of the US this right is recognized and upheld via Shall Issue policies of concealed carry license: anyone with a clean record showing they follow the law, is 21 years or older, has basic understanding of the applicable laws, and possesses basic competency in handling of firearms is given license their sidearm of choice upon their person, concealed as to conduct their lives among society without disruption of others or harassment by those of differing beliefs. California even has this right acknowledged in many counties, and in fact in the vast majority of the land area of the state. Yes, there is a such thing as a California license to carry firearms. In many areas this is well respected, yet in others you'd never know it exists at all, and some even go out of their way to make sure you never get one for yourself.

For some strange reason some areas of California has it subject to the whims of politicians who often see little in the value of rights and safety of the individual. You literally have less rights purely by being resident in the most populated areas of California. The SAME PERSON anywhere else occupying any of the Free States or in other areas somehow magically becomes judged less worthy for the mere fact of crossing an imaginary line.

The massacres of Virginia Tech, the mall in Nebraska, and NIU occurred in so called "gun free zones," meaning places where lawful possession of firearms of law abiding citizens was prohibited. The law abiding complied and were rewarded with execution. Absolutely zero was accomplished except guaranteeing their helplessness. Most states long ago realized the necessity for allowing citizens their right to self defense in public, and now are working to rectify the problems caused by exclusions to this basic right. Concealed carry by the average citizen has been a success everywhere it has been tried. Correspondingly, the lack of it has clearly been proven to achieve the opposite. California by its questionable "may issue" system has, for the vast majority of the population, become the country's largest "gun free zone." As a result people are free targets for all manner of violent crime because of it. More restrictions on gun ownership, particularly that which may be carried and the act of carrying them are implemented...and the crime continues. Not one less crime actually ever takes place, and nobody even bothers to honestly ask why. Yet as the rest of the country has gotten wise to the problem and is fixing it, the heavily populated counties in CA and the state remain the same and are in fact moving in the opposite direction, away from what has worked everywhere else. The solution to the problem is being applied everywhere else, yet where it is needed it is completely ignored. In fact the very people who deserve the same relief, the same freedom to solve their own problems are the very people to whom the proven solution is being denied.

In short, if you live in the heavily populated counties of California, you are being punished for living there--just because misguided politicians and policemen who are supposed to care for your safety suggest doing so by implementing policies which insure the opposite. Laws, laws, and more laws, yet none of the "promised" results. Those who trumpet the cause of firearms restriction in the name of safety are charlatans. Rather than being demanded to account for their results, they are instead given free rein to sacrifice other people to their flawed, feelgood based policies in spite of what results virtually everwhere else have shown.

This group's purpose is to demand, quite simply, the same right to defend ourselves in California as is afforded to citizens in the vast majority of the rest of the US. There is absolutely no reason to obstruct or exclude any citizen's right to carry who is otherwise accepted in 40 out of the 50 states. Those who have license to do so in other states should have their rights honored here as well.

The Second Amendment is not optional, discretionary, or subject to arbitrary whims. To defend oneself is not only a right, it is a fundamental responsibility.
---------------------------------

Who needs to join?

Anyone who has moved from another state and now has less rights than they had--for the "crime" of moving to California.

If you have out of state permits that are valid in lots of places EXCEPT...where you live. You're actually safer 300 miles away than at your grocery store.

If you live in a county that has no issue because of sheriffs who think your rights aren't rights just because you're in their jurisdiction.

If you don't have $10,000+ to donate to a local election in exchange for the right to protect your life--and you don't find legalized bribery within your ethics.

If you don't think having an occupation that can kill you should be a requirement for the right not to be murdered.

If you'd rather not have to be robbed or raped first to be justified in defending yourself from being robbed or raped the second time.

If your last name isn't Affleck or Stallone or first name isn't preceded by "The Honorable" yet your kids still love you and want you to get home safe at night.
----------------------

This isn't about being extreme or outlandish. It's simply a demand for equal rights. Give us the same access to our rights as everywhere else. The right to go to a gas station late at night. The right to visit an ATM without being a target. The right to drive your car without fear of it being stolen with you in it. The right to not have someone else's bad decisions in life decide whether or not your family sees you that night.

There should be NO:

"Good Cause" requirement that can be rejected on a whim. We are living human beings. Human life is priceless. Our families value us more than a bag of cash or a tray of diamonds. That's good enough cause to defend ourselves wherever we may be.

No "discretion" in determining who gets to choose whether to bear arms or not. That's our job.

No ridiculous repository or waiting periods. Waiting till 21 years old, being able to pay retail price for it, and going through a standard FBI background check and ATF form 4473 is good enough for anyone everywhere else.

No exclusionary list of what a panel of bureacrats think is "acceptable" and "safe" for ordinary citizens to own while the state's designated people have no such standard. Whatever the market provides and the individual determines appropriate for them as in every other state should be available to all who can legally purchase.

No more nonsense because we somehow cross a line between two spots in the desert, one tree further south, or some rock in the middle of a river. This is the United States of America and it's about time California got the picture and started acting like it.

KenpoProfessor
May 9, 2008, 11:14 AM
Most California gun owners are not interested in protesting in person. They elect to abdicate that responsibility to someone else, most notably the NRA.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=99839


I've seen the people on Calguns put down some of the other gun rights orgs. for taking more extreme measures, and they blaim them for the Microstamping Bill that passed. I was also banned from that site for letting them know that a prominent Calguns member was also a contributor to Obama's campaign to the tune of $500. Hmm, gotta wonder why they have the laws they do huh?



CA is a lost cause, I saw the writing on the wall and got out last year. They will let the legislators run them into the ground because most are not willing to do the legwork themselves to get grassroots efforts off the ground. I moved because the activism wasn't there, they just wanted to email, fax, and phone call. Me, I wanted to be on the doorstep of the Capital building.

Here in Phoenix, we are attempting to organize a protest march against the ATF actions taken here against Cav Arms. But, with the recent actions against XCalibur, wouldn't be prudent at this time, however, it is in the works.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

MarcusWendt
May 9, 2008, 11:36 AM
I was also banned from that site

You divulge the financial transaction of another member and got banned? What a shock. And now you're here talking them down, what a shock.

Something to remember is that CA is a very large state. It's not always easy to make the 5-8 hour drive to the state capitol which happens to be a in city that is quickly becoming a total hell hole.

I enjoy how you say that CA is a lost cause right after you ran away from the fight.

Good luck in AZ.

KenpoProfessor
May 9, 2008, 11:49 AM
You divulge the financial transaction of another member and got banned? What a shock. And now you're here talking them down, what a shock.

Something to remember is that CA is a very large state. It's not always easy to make the 5-8 hour drive to the state capitol which happens to be a in city that is quickly becoming a total hell hole.

I enjoy how you say that CA is a lost cause right after you ran away from the fight.

Good luck in AZ.

It was on a public site, I found the name and went :eek::eek: , Huffington Post list the names of contributors to all candidates.

I lived 6 hours from Sac. in Riverside, and I was willing to make the drive because I wanted to do something substantial. Others are not, did you read the post in the link?

Yep, call me a coward, but now I live in a state where my 2nd Amendment is barely infringed (meaning NFA toys are still available, you just gotta pay the taxes) . I also own many of the guns that were felonies to own in CA, or, that you couldn't get thru normal channels because of the Unsafe Handgun list. I express my 2nd amendment freedom daily when I CCW or Open Carry.

BTW, here's some more CA taxation without representation.

http://k53.pbase.com/g3/83/471983/2/96308234.Ei3C2QUd.jpg

Have a great non gun carryin' in CA Kenpo day

Clyde

TraderJack
May 9, 2008, 12:17 PM
I left San Francisco in '84 - I just couldn't take it anymore. The town was overrun by gays, liberal zealots and charlatans. Most blue collar jobs and many white collar jobs were lost to the 'restructuring' of city economics.

After landing in Sacramento, I felt comfortable for a few years - until Gray Davis was elected! Thank goodness the recall succeded! But we were left with the 'governator'. A classic wolf in sheeps clothing. I had to get out. I kept visualizing Ah-nold, Pelosi and Boxer coming for my guns! Left 4 years ago.

I'm with KP, call me a coward if you want, but CA is gone... and so am I.
There is no hope in restoring the Golden State to it's former glory. I miss the weather and my friends, but that's about it.

MarcusWendt
May 9, 2008, 01:30 PM
CA is a lost cause, I saw the writing on the wall and got out last year. They will let the legislators run them into the ground because most are not willing to do the legwork themselves to get grassroots efforts off the ground. I moved because the activism wasn't there, they just wanted to email, fax, and phone call. Me, I wanted to be on the doorstep of the Capital building.

Yep, call me a coward

O.K., I'll take it back... right after you post a link to One grass roots effort YOU started. Show me where YOU organized a protest. Show me that link and I'll apologize.

I don't think leaving CA is such a bad thing, but if the only reason you leave is because of the gun laws and then you mock others for the way they fight while you yourself ran, well, you know what that makes you.

The OP sent his support, others mock us. The OP is a small part of the solution, the others....

romma
May 9, 2008, 01:37 PM
Too Bad simultaneous protests couldn't be pulled off in San Diego, LA,San Fran, and Sacramento at the same time and garner some media attention...

Or could they?? :)

TAB
May 9, 2008, 01:40 PM
i was there for about a hour.

MarcusWendt
May 9, 2008, 01:43 PM
I believe they could, it would just take some serious organization and commitment.

If freaking illegals can march in L.A. protest for illegal rights they've done nothing to earn, than I think we should upset traffic, block doors, impede progress to protest our state taking away our constitutional rights.

As I think about it, our thing could be this.

We block the entrances to doorways of elected officials offices. We make them call police, but when the police get there, right before they are going to arrest us, we move stating "We actually obey the law, unlike the criminals that will ignore the law you are proposing".

crebralfix
May 9, 2008, 02:07 PM
We already know that *most* CA gun owners aren't interested in really interested in fighting for their rights. If they were, there'd be politicians hanging from lampposts.

It's as simple as that. Force will be required in California and the gun owning population is not interested in paying the blood price.

MarcusWendt
May 9, 2008, 02:09 PM
We already know that *most* CA gun owners aren't interested in really interested in fighting for their rights. If they were, there'd be politicians hanging from lampposts.

It's as simple as that. Force will be required in California and the gun owning population is not interested in paying the blood price.

***??? Unlike where? In what other state has blood been flowing in the streets in the name of 2A lately?

crebralfix
May 9, 2008, 02:11 PM
I guess you missed the words "will be required" in the post.

Never mind the changes at the Federal level that will be required to limit state action. Hopefully, we'll see the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment with Heller. Such a ruling will eliminate many California gun laws. However, the decision still needs to be enforced...I don't see CA politicians giving up their laws easily.

KenpoProfessor
May 9, 2008, 02:42 PM
O.K., I'll take it back... right after you post a link to One grass roots effort YOU started. Show me where YOU organized a protest. Show me that link and I'll apologize.

I'm not searching through all my posts where I suggested such a thing, you're welcome to. Besides, I was also attempting to do such things off the internet, like gunstores, where the FFL had too much to lose if they took part. DOJ BOF has everyone so scared they refuse to take action.

I don't think leaving CA is such a bad thing, but if the only reason you leave is because of the gun laws and then you mock others for the way they fight while you yourself ran, well, you know what that makes you.

Gun laws were not the only reason, the ILLEGAL alien problem, legislators gone wild with ridiculous laws to control and inhibit citizens in every action, LEOs gone wild with no knock warrants and traffic stops that yield arrests for legal guns, etc., etc. ad nauseum. I mean c'mon, when they make it ILLEGAL to put a fireplace in your new house or attempt to pass laws so the gov. can regulate your thermostat? Yea, someplace I wanted to stay :what:

Oh, and thanks to CA we have Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi in the Fed gov. mucking things up there for the rest of us.

Have a great non gun carryin' CA Kenpo day

Clyde

TraderJack
May 9, 2008, 03:04 PM
i was there for about a hour.
What was your impression of the event TAB?

MarcusWendt
May 9, 2008, 03:55 PM
Oh, and thanks to CA we have Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi in the Fed gov. mucking things up there for the rest of us.


What rest of us? Did you not say you used to live here? You were a Californian. Didn't you vote?

Thanks to the MAJORITY of Californians we have....

Don't go painting all of us with the same brush and don't go criticizing the way we fight since you took yourself out of the fight.

KenpoProfessor
May 9, 2008, 04:08 PM
What rest of us? Did you not say you used to live here? You were a Californian. Didn't you vote?

Thanks to the MAJORITY of Californians we have....

Don't go painting all of us with the same brush and don't go criticizing the way we fight since you took yourself out of the fight.

I got outvoted, and I never voted for any of the above listed. After Prop 187 got shot down in court, there really wasn't a reason to vote anymore. We got it on the ballot, got it passed by a landslide, then had some federal judge, appointed by a liberal, legislate it from the bench and shot it down.

What fight? There isn't a fight there, it's do as I say or go to jail, too bad how sad. Have you seen the insane laws that are in the legislation right now? Biometric guns, ammunition restrictions, the micro stamping bill Ahhhnnnuuuld signed last year, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Yea, call me crazy for leaving to visit sanity?:banghead:

Have a great non gun carryin' CA Kenpo day

Clyde

TooTaxed
May 10, 2008, 01:39 PM
I truly loved California for many years...it's undoubtedly one of the most beautiful states, with many different types of scenery...we always had pheasant, ducks, geese, abalone, venison in the freezer, We camped a lot, hiked the High Country, watched the sea lions on the beaches near Hearst Castle, had favorite restaurants from one end of the state to the other. We lived in the San Francisco area, and never got tired of any of it.

And then, society began going crazy. They thought the electrical utilities were charging too much, so they put a cap on charges without any relation to cost! Incredibly stupid. New power plants couldn't be built, and nothing was done until the power companies essentially went out of business due to losses. The indigent had free rein to do what they wanted in San Francisco, demanding handouts. Due to smog in the LA City basin, California passed gasoline refining requirements that essentially raised the cost of gasoline up to 50 cents higher than the rest of the nation. And then came Feinstein...and Pelosi...and Boxer...and they kept being reelected!

And the assault weapons ban, when they allowed people to regester their currently owned assault weapons, the owners thinking they were grandfathered and could keep them. Six months later the Attorny General sent the police around to confiscate them.

And the above is was just a sampling of things were were unable to do anything about...and believe me, I was active. The final straw was the Fresno City Council...Corrupt? Inept? Too deeply involved in the "Old Boy Network"? I've never quite decided...they unfairly screwed both me and my company. I'd had it...we packed a few things in a 6 x 10 enclosed trailer we bought, had local charities clean out the rest of our apartment including the kitchen ware, put a sign on the rear of the trailer "Farewell **********!" and headed east.

Believe me...here in Georgia it's not as beautiful, but the air is certainly freer. There is none of the crap that we suffered in **********. And I do sincerely symphasize with the people still there, and I often miss many of the things we enjoyed...but we aren't going back, except for an occasional visit. Things aren't going to change there until the normal people organize and start protesting in crowds.

brighamr
May 10, 2008, 02:00 PM
I've seen the people on Calguns put down some of the other gun rights orgs. for taking more extreme measures, and they blaim them for the Microstamping Bill that passed.

I completely agree. Back when Heller was first started, I tried to think of followup cases specifically for CA infringements. Calguns shot that down hard. Any other ideas I had (organizing protests, suing the state for specific 2A laws, etc) were always shut down, reason? "we need to take our time and do things one step at a time. We can't just up and protest as that would cause more harm than good." I actually remember forum members getting mad that I would even suggest a protest...

Well a lot of good has happened since I left. Microstamping, people getting arrested for grey area guns, more anti bills introduced with a high likelyhood of passing, no-knocks, raids, etc. etc.

It's a bad situation because I personally knew about 5 people there who really wanted to do something to change the state's horrible laws. Most of them have done just as I have, moved to a different state and become grossly involved in 2A - where they can actually make a difference and the rest of their 2A brothers want to do something... not just talk about SHTF and "taking it slow".

For the record, CA was a pit stop. I've lived in 9 states, and that is the only one which I will never live in again (if I even tried to visit friends with the guns I own now, I'd get about 15 felony charges).

yokel
May 10, 2008, 06:16 PM
We already know that *most* CA gun owners aren't interested in really interested in fighting for their rights. If they were, there'd be politicians hanging from lampposts.

It's as simple as that. Force will be required in California and the gun owning population is not interested in paying the blood price.

What is to be done then with respect to regimes in de facto single party soft authoritarian states?

I suppose it then comes down to either fight, i.e., armed struggle or flight to a relatively free state.

brighamr
May 10, 2008, 07:33 PM
What is to be done then with respect to regimes in de facto single party soft authoritarian states?

I suppose it then comes down to either fight, i.e., armed struggle or flight to a relatively free state.

to summarize, Californians have several different choices:
1) get off their butts and march on the capitol
2) armed resistance (which wont do anything good)
3) leave
4) continue "business as usual" which means a lot of e-mails/faxes and no results

Ieyasu
May 10, 2008, 08:14 PM
After Prop 187 got shot down in court, there really wasn't a reason to vote anymore. We got it on the ballot, got it passed by a landslide, then had some federal judge, appointed by a liberal, legislate it from the bench and shot it down.
Good point. And Red, err Gray, Davis refused to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision.

yokel
May 10, 2008, 09:00 PM
1) get off their butts and march on the capitol

You do realize that this is a desperate and futile gesture, eh?

The institutional and/or organizational conventions that support the status quo render conventional political action such as the protest march, sit-down blockade, or rally ineffectual and absurd.

Behind a facade of democracy lies what is essentially an oligarchic one-party state!

TraderJack
May 14, 2008, 02:11 PM
I just recieved this email from Gwen Friesen at GOC:
Subject: Victory! AB 2062 Suspended in Committee

Breaking News of AB 2062 – Ammo Registration

The Assembly Committee on Appropriations has just placed AB 2062 on the Suspense File. Even though any bill with costs of over $150,000 automatically goes to suspense, Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon amended his bill in an attempt to get below this fiscal threshold.

We’ve heard from our supporters that members of the Appropriations committee admit to having received many hundreds of phone calls on AB 2062 since our Lobby Day on May 6th, and virtually 100% in opposition. Key Democrat staffers answering the phone have indicated that their bosses believe that there is no support for this bill and it will die.

The Suspense File is often used by the committee as a tool to bury bills they want to see go away. They simply leave the bill on suspense until after the deadline to take up any more bills. They then claim that the state does not have enough resources to fund the bill which allows the author to save face.

If AB 2062 stays on the Suspense File, we will all know the real reason.

Ask any pro-gun member of the Appropriations Committee and they will tell you that the lobbying effort spearheaded by Gun Owners of California was timely and effective. We will continue to lead the way.

Thank you to all of the other organization who took part in our Lobbying Day. We make a heck of a team when we work together.

We will keep you informed about any change in status on AB 2062.

Sam Paredes
GOC Executive Director

Woooo-Hoooo!:D

MarcusWendt
May 14, 2008, 04:09 PM
CA is a lost cause

We’ve heard from our supporters that members of the Appropriations committee admit to having received many hundreds of phone calls on AB 2062 since our Lobby Day on May 6th, and virtually 100% in opposition. Key Democrat staffers answering the phone have indicated that their bosses believe that there is no support for this bill and it will die.

M14/11B
May 14, 2008, 04:25 PM
Who cares if these dimwits "save face" for writing a bill that on ITS face is stupid. They should be shown up as a laughing stock that they are. CA is doomed...it's just a matter of when.

mojohand
May 14, 2008, 04:27 PM
I'm with you Marcus. Sure California has A LOT of problems and we definately have an uphill fight. But fight we will. And although we all couldn't go to the capitol as we would have liked, obviously the efforts paid off. Going down to the capitol was only part of the fight...not even the most important part..barraging them with emails, letters, and phone calls was the other part.

If folks want to move out of the state, go ahead, but leave your criticism at the border.

M14/11B
May 14, 2008, 04:41 PM
Having so many people leaving the state is half the reason CA is going broke...no one wants to do business in a hostile environment. You would think these guys would get it. Make CA a place to want to do business and the rest will take care of itself. Thats how it used to be and why we became such an economic power. So criticism is warranted.

mojohand
May 14, 2008, 07:28 PM
I'm all in favor of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, but with comments like those posted...mostly from defeated ex-californians, who are no longer willing to stay and fight, and move to easier more gun tolerant states...we just don't need your opinions unless your willing to help us. Just hiding behind comments like, "california's a lost cause" does nothing but piss off those of us who are fighting the good fight.

And I'm not knocking anyone for moving away either, just remeber where you came form, and the rest of us who are still here...still fighting

M14/11B
May 15, 2008, 10:43 AM
mojo...I have been fighting the good fight for 45 years and if the elected people ignore you no matter how many times you elect new people you are wasting your time. CA is [was] a fine place to live at one time and I'll miss it. Just that its about to be liberalized out of existence. M14

joe4702
May 15, 2008, 09:08 PM
For those folks who want to do more, but aren't sure how to contribute beyond e-mails and phone calls, see if there's an active NRA Members Council in your area.

Here's a link to the main California site. On the left side of the page, there's a link which brings up a map showing all the local councils in California.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/

As an example, here's some things the San Diego chapter is involved with:

- recruiting new NRA members at gun shows
- conducting Women on Target and youth shooting clinics
- voter registration drives
- setting up info booths at non-gun events.
We're considering a local airshow and next years Earth Day celebration (that should be interesting!).

All of these are designed to expose more folks to the shooting sports and the pro-gun viewpoint.

Everyone is a volunteer. If there's an active council in your area, they would probably be grateful to have more help.

tepin
May 18, 2008, 11:32 AM
I dont think I could ever live in CA - it is just too far left in all categories.

Harley Quinn
May 18, 2008, 12:39 PM
BTW, here's some more CA taxation without representation.

http://k53.pbase.com/g3/83/471983/2/...4.Ei3C2QUd.jpg

Have a great non gun carryin' in CA Kenpo day

This is needed also if you think about self defense, more likly to have to fight with your fists, than a gun.

I dont think I could ever live in CA - it is just too far left in all categories

We are really a republican state with democratic cities, the left in a few of the larger citys are where it prevails. So much population in those locations that vote.

We have a Republican Gov and a Supreme court of the state votes in a 4-3 for gay marriage:what: He was/is not happy with it. Who knows where that one will go now:confused:

Lot of taxes and people who are receiving some sort of aid (major cities) so the vote in the cities are left of center not right.

Sacramento is the capitol and is going by way of DC which is one of the worst cities in the Americas.

Not good you say? Lots of jobs and money to be made in a State like this one.
If owning the illegal guns of the state is all you want out of life, moving is the best thing.

billwiese
May 18, 2008, 02:28 PM
Several comments to some of the above posts, from someone 'in the fight':


I don't know details of the Calgunner who donated to Obama's camapaign.

But you might in future see some other 'unusual' donations from certain individual Calgunners to get A Place At The Table in *California* politics.

Esp. given that CA Republicans (wholly aside from any national issues) seem to have given up on creating electable politicians: those perceived as creationist Bible thumpers from Orange County can't make it to statewide office, along with those continuing to rally around the antiabortion cause.
This is why CA Republicans are at risk of beings shyle of a few votes from going below 1/3rd - allowing 2/3 Demo override on budget, the only arena where CA Repubs have a chance of affecting things as it stands now.

(The 'choice' issue is a 100% dead issue in CA regardless of what you feel. It simply is no longer winnable - honestly, I don't care if there's a dead abortion doctor in my driveway, but making those sentiments a key issue in a CA election is a completely brain-dead losing cause in CA and actually affects gun rights: due to the nature of CA polity, an antiabortion politician must be regarded as antigun because of his rendering himself unelectable to statewide office - and thus being a useless POS to the larger gunrights cause.)

In CA, we do have some unusual friends in unusual places that can't show a lot of leg - but who are sympathetic and will be moving into new offices in the next two election cycles.

Having a successful Parker/Heller outcome, along with derivative successor cases filed afterward will enable these people to more fully justify (not that it should be needed) their position in not moviing forward, obstructing, etc. new gun bills.


Yes, GOC's Sam Paredes is ENTIRELY responsible for the microstamping and lead ammo bills being passed. When a two-bit hack like Paredes tries to screw with the Governor Arnie at the wrong/critical time, he'll lose - and then he drags the rest of the 'gun people' (NRA, etc.) down with him. Fortunately a friendly 'someone' added some interesting text into the microstamping legislation that essentially ensures it's not implementable for decades (due to sole-source IP/patent restrictions, etc.)


The GOC 'march on the Capitol steps' was around 60 - 80 people spread out thru the morning. They toured some offices and were, happily, treated politely.

But privately ask a legislative aide for either party if being part of a haranguing crowd on the Capitol steps does any good - and they'll say they're generally 100% ignored or derided. Whatever issue the crowd is touting or castigating receives no additional traction because of their action.

2062 got killed because of the alternate NRA (with Calgunner help, I know I and other folks had $40+ cellphone bills) calling and emailing during critical times. That burns staff resources and 'increases the pain' when thousands of calls tie up switchboards.

One of the other dangers of such 'march on the steps' tactics is that the cammy-wearing loons spouting militia rhetoric pop out. We were fortunate this didn't happen this time around. And sometimes such people may not be true progunners, but 'rent a mob' agitprop types hired by Bradyites.


The GOC 'demonstration' appears more related to attention-getting to be noticed by Tom McClintock's campaign. Sam Paredes' wife needs a new legislative assistant job -IIRC, believe her current member will be termed out, and creating a bit of noise here and helping his campaign might help her. (Sam runs a lot of GOC out of the back of whatever legislator's office his wife is working for...)


There was a comment about 'so many people leaving the state'. Maybe some are - but SF and San Jose area populations are increasing, real estate values haven't plunged like other areas of CA or USA, and tech/biotech job growth continues because those are seats of productivity & innovation. Many of the people moving out are lower-skilled or lower-effort folks that can't keep up and are not at the higher end of the tax base.

CA's budget problem is that spending has simply risen by 30% during periods when revenue was increasing at a normal percentage (or, recently, remaining flat). This is not only the fault of illegals and their supporters, but the basic idiotic soccer mom that wants 'wouldn't it be nice' free cookies for everyone - in cahoots with CA Republicans that have rendered themselves irrelevant for the last decade, and can't hold things back anymore.





Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Yellowfin
May 20, 2008, 02:22 PM
2062 is no longer dead. It needs to be killed again. Geez, this is like some kind of horror movie!

brigadier
May 20, 2008, 04:46 PM
We are really a republican state with democratic cities, the left in a few of the larger citys are where it prevails. So much population in those locations that vote.

California is an extremely cultured place. I have to admit, the "live and let live" enlightenment idea is a popular philosophy among the people.


We have a Republican Gov and a Supreme court of the state votes in a 4-3 for gay marriage He was/is not happy with it. Who knows where that one will go now

Arnie is a republican only in name. He's closer to a socialist in practice. Protesting against gay mirage is not a good example of conservative ideals. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you want an example of a true conservative approach to this issue, look at Ron Paul's response to questioning about gay mirage: "I support all voluntary associations and people can call them whatever they want."

Lot of taxes and people who are receiving some sort of aid (major cities) so the vote in the cities are left of center not right.

Actually, we had a huge amount of Ron Paul support throughout the cities. There were signs all over the place, rampant support groups all over the place and all over then news. Sadly, when it came voting day, hardly any of them showed up at the polls. It seams as though our cities are strongly populated by libertarians and constitutionalists, who apparently don't bother voting.

Sacramento is the capitol and is going by way of DC which is one of the worst cities in the Americas.

I live in the Sacramento area. Violence has gone up a bit in the last year, but not by mass proportions. I have seen more violence per capita in small towns.

Not good you say? Lots of jobs and money to be made in a State like this one.
If owning the illegal guns of the state is all you want out of life, moving is the best thing.

California lifestyle is actually very insecure to say the least. It is a true police state. You can be arrested on next to no evidence and if you don't know how to fight, you can be held in jail for months. The police tend to get away with harassing anyone they please and show no signs of caring about right and wrong. It is a true bully government. As much as you hear about gang wars and the like, California is a place where people truly fear the government more then common criminals, and I can honestly say that I have met some common criminals who had stronger morals and better behavior then probably 1/3 of the police I have encountered around here. A common attitude among, say, shoplifter types is: "I know, I screwed up. I need to work on it." while a common attitude from LEOS around here is: "So what? I'm a cop. I don't have to show regard, so I won't."
Take guns completely out of the picture, and it is still a dangerous place to live, not necessarily because of common criminals, but because of the government. The behavior of the California government is an example of why the 2nd amendment was made.
In the 8 years of my adult life, apart from one missing person report a neighbor filed and someone who called them on a crackhead who took a dump on his car, I have never seen anyone see a cop car and think or say: "Oh, what a relief" or "Nice to see a good civil servant". It's always: "Oh, no, be careful, he'll bother you for anything." and "What now, can't they just leave people alone?"
It's kinda funny that they swear an oath to uphold the constitution without ever even reading it, and get offended when people call them on it. That all said, only 1/3 of them are all that bad. Another probably 40% of them are just plain professional and the rest are middle aged officers who are actually good decent folk. People still freak around the good ones, but that's because of the behaviors of the bad ones. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If mean cops bother you and the nice ones leave you alone, then the mean ones are what you'll remember.

TraderJack
May 20, 2008, 05:52 PM
I can't agree with your statement that Mr. Paul's appreciation of gay marriage is conservative:
If you want an example of a true conservative approach to this issue, look at Ron Paul's response to questioning about gay mirage: "I support all voluntary associations and people can call them whatever they want."

It may be his own view, but it certainly is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible, and a reverence for the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.

Nowhere in either document or book, do the relationships of gay people gain support.
There is no stated 'right' to marriage, gay or otherwise - anywhere.

Mr. Paul is certainly entitled to his opinion, but in my view, this is the very kind of issue that has kept the candidate from gaining wider support. His stated positions about national isolationism and his desire to return the United States to the 19th Century, have exiled Mr. Paul to the back of the bus where he belongs.

mpmarty
May 20, 2008, 06:22 PM
California suffers from too many ills to single one out. There are simply too many solutions seeking problems and too many people who have no clue of what is contained in the US or for that matter the California Constitution(s) to even begin to see what they have lost already and stand on the cusp of losing sooner rather than later. I bailed out of that coo coo land in 1969 and never looked back.

brigadier
May 20, 2008, 08:12 PM
It may be his own view, but it certainly is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible, and a reverence for the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.

Nowhere in either document or book, do the relationships of gay people gain support.
There is no stated 'right' to marriage, gay or otherwise - anywhere.

Getting involved in gay mirage at all is a blatant violation of the first amendment since mirage is strictly a religious matter. It's up to religion to govened among themselves such matters. If gays want to independently have their unions and call it mirage, then just role your eyes and let them be. Declaring any branch of the government "Christian" is also a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.
While the constitution was written by Christians, they made it very clear that the government it's self is to know no religion. The ideas this country was based on (the enlightenment) are full of concerns posed by it's philosophers and our forefathers alike for the welfare of a country who has their hands in religion or religious rules at all.
In the bill of rights, only 2 amendments are focused on the rights of society at large, and the rest dealing with the justice system. This is because of 2 things. 1, the simplicity of civil rights and 2, the real rights of society are spelled out in the declaration of independence: "All men are created equal and possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" To make it simple, all people have the right to do and live as they please provided they do not pose harm to others. Again, the authors of the constitution were very vocal about this and the constitution of the US is just the tip of the iceberg to a large movement that proceeded that vastly reinforces the points I have made on this thread.

Mr. Paul is certainly entitled to his opinion, but in my view, this is the very kind of issue that has kept the candidate from gaining wider support. His stated positions about national isolationism and his desire to return the United States to the 19th Century, have exiled Mr. Paul to the back of the bus where he belongs.


So basically, you are all for meddling in the affairs of other countries, doing military ops in conjunction with the UN and going to war with other countries, all without the congressional declaration of war that our constitution mandates? The oath to uphold the constitution means nothing to you? Bypassing constitutional security measures to change the law unconstitutionally is perfectly fine and dandy?
Tell me, (no I am not gay) but if you don't respect other peoples rights to follow their sexual preferences, then why should anyone respect your right to own guns? That's how the constitution works man. No one likes everyones rights, but you have to respect the ones you don't like if you want them to respect those that you DO like. It's the "live and let live" concept. Once you decide to bend the rules on the agreement between man and man (the constitution in this case) then no one values the agreement anymore, thus, no one feels restraint in violating your liberties. If you live by the sword, you parish by the sword. On the contrary, I found that even liberals and gun haters find themselves friendly to me owning guns upon realizing that in not just words, but in my actions, I respect their right to smoke pot, be lesbians (all the gays I know are lesbians) and basically anything non-aggressive. You'll be in awe at how much people will start respecting your rights once you start respecting theirs. IMHO, there is no better way to win the gun war. In fact, as one of the people who made the Ron Paul revolution happen, I noticed that the ultra conservative idea erupted so hard because the hard leftists, on top of frustration, discovered that constitutionalists and libertarians are contrary to how they were being depicted, respect ALL of their rights even if they didn't like them, and consistency of principal means allot to people of all walks of life.

BTW. The last congressional declaration of war was made on December 8th of 1941. The last time another country declared war against the US was Hungary on June 5th of 1942.
Long story short, everything that has happened since then (minus the hunt for Al Queda) has been a blatant violation of constitutional law. Even the hunt for Al Queda stretched beyond constitutional limits when we decided to metal with the infrastructures of countries that they were hiding in rather then just get the purps and get out like we were suppose to.

billwiese
May 20, 2008, 08:59 PM
Oh gawd, another Paulista looking for the First Coming.

I do have to differ with Trader Jack:

... it certainly is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible...

Somewhere along the path we got confused and the definition of 'conservative' got taken over by Religious Right: conservatism, however, has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. I and many other conservatives are complete nonreligionists.

I'm a conservative, and my strong faith in the Bible is restricted to the knowledge that it'll reliably prop up the corner of my sofa.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

TraderJack
May 21, 2008, 01:03 AM
Wow. I didn't mean to cause a forest fire with my dissagreement over the chartacterization of Mr. Pauls view of gay marriage.
I guess I hit a nerve, huh?!

Let's be clear about this...
brigadier said:
Declaring any branch of the government "Christian" is also a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.
This is what the 1st Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I said: "...it(his view) is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible, and a reverence for the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence."

I didn't declare any branch of the government "Christian". There is no violation of any amendment at all in what I posted.
Your comment clearly distorts my post.

Then brigadier said:
While the constitution was written by Christians, they made it very clear that the government it's self is to know no religion.

So... the government is to know NO religion?
I wonder why we have so many reminders of our Christian faith in the trappings of our government?

For instance, let's look at the building that houses The Supreme Court of The United States...
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f372/highdesert/Agree/image002.gif

There he is, chisled in stone - Moses holding the Ten Commandments!

And at the entrance to the high court we see images of The Ten Commandments on the huge oak doors.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f372/highdesert/Agree/image004.gif

Just look around Washington - References to Christianity are everywhere.

And what about ol' James Madison, the fourth president, the 'The Father of Our Constitution' and this wise crack he made:
' We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.'
The Christian faith is widely entertwined in our government. While we respect all faiths, America is Christian, through and through.
We are a Christian nation!

Then brigadier implied that I was for meddling?
So basically, you are all for meddling in the affairs of other countries, doing military ops in conjunction with the UN and going to war with other countries, all without the congressional declaration of war that our constitution mandates? The oath to uphold the constitution means nothing to you?
I didn't say anything like that. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

I said that Mr. Paul's position on national isolation and his wanting to turn back the clock are not only impractical, the concept is narrow minded and flies in the face of everything we hold dear, our capitalist way of life.
Mr. Paul's position is archaic.

Then you want to lecture me about violations of constitutional law!
...everything that has happened since then (minus the hunt for Al Queda) has been a blatant violation of constitutional law. Even the hunt for Al Queda stretched beyond constitutional limits when we decided to metal with the infrastructures of countries that they were hiding in rather then just get the purps and get out like we were suppose to.
The President has important inherent authority as leader of the Executive Branch and Commander-In-Chief. I emphasize Commander-In-Chief because we are at war. Did you forget we have several interests, both military and business interests in foreign lands?
We are not about to allow them to be nationalized or threatened by thugs and bullies. We will protect America's soverignty.

And, billwiese, sir, I am not a member of the 'religious right' but my Bible is a companion.
I would never consider using it to 'prop up' my sofa!
Somewhere along the path we got confused and the definition of 'conservative' got taken over by Religious Right: conservatism, however, has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. I and many other conservatives are complete nonreligionists.

I'm a conservative, and my strong faith in the Bible is restricted to the knowledge that it'll reliably prop up the corner of my sofa.If you had treated the Muslim holy book with such disrespect I doubt you would have seen the next sunrise. There's something seriously wrong with America when Americans disdain the Christian Bible in such a fashion.

Conservatism has everything to do with Christian values.
Conservatism is based on our culture, our religion, our history, our language and our traditions.

Merriam-Webster defines Conservatism thusly:
... a disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs
While the one great tradition in America is freedom of religion, America is a Christian nation. It always has been, and it always will be.

brigadier
May 21, 2008, 01:04 AM
Somewhere along the path we got confused and the definition of 'conservative' got taken over by Religious Right: conservatism, however, has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. I and many other conservatives are complete nonreligionists.

Actually, I REALLY hope the republicans become strongly defined as a Christian fundamentalist party for 2 reasons. 1, the Muslim terrorists will have a better scope of who there real enemy is (the Muslims always have and always will be cautious of Christian fundamentalists, and for a good reason) hopefully leaving the rest of us alone and 2, the more they become an "in the name of religion" party, the more Christians, Atheists and people of other faiths alike will flock to the Constitutionalist and libertarian party. No good conservative in their right mind, Christian or non-Christian wants to see the middle ages revived here in the US, which (speaking as a Medieval historian and author), we are mimicking in our day to day lives in many ways already, mostly stuff related to radical paranoia, judgment and military philosophy.

brigadier
May 21, 2008, 01:54 AM
This is what the 1st Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I said: "...it is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible, and a reverence for the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence."

I didn't declare any branch of the government "Christian". There is no violation of any amendment at all in what I posted.
Your comment clearly distorts my post.

Marked in bold is the key point. Please tell me, if religion or christian faith (religion) is not the motivation for wanting to ban gay mirage, then tell me, what is?

o... the government is to know NO religion?
I wonder why we have so many reminders of our Christian faith in the trappings of our government?

How about this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

And as they pointed out late in the article, there is no evidence that he made such claim, and the manner of the quotation is fishy at that. Reminds me of 2nd and 3rd century Roman propaganda.

I didn't say anything like that. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

I said that Mr. Paul's position on national isolation and his wanting to turn back the clock are not only impractical, the concept is narrow minded and flies in the face of everything we hold dear, our capitalist way of life.
Mr. Paul's position is archaic.


Very well. Since he has spoken very strongly in support of free trade (far more free then today), friendship and travel throughout the world, what exactly are you suggesting to be isolation if not minding our own business like our constitution orders?
How about this. I want to visit Belgrade since I am writing a book that's climax takes place at. I want to visit the actual places I am writing about and converse with the historians and experts who specialize and study the physical evidence of the subject I am writing about, but I am repeatedly being advised not to visit Belgrade. Why? Because our military, for apparently no good reason, bombed the city, and now the people there have a very deep hatred towards Americans butting in to there business despite having never raised a finger against us.

The President has important inherent authority as leader of the Executive Branch and Commander-In-Chief. I emphasize Commander-In-Chief because we are at war.

With who? Who did Congress declare war against?

Did you forget we have several interests, both military and business interests in foreign lands?

Sounds like tyranny to me. The only rightful military interest we have is to defend our borders and country from foreign attack.
Now that you mention it, having done the research myself, "our military and business interests" in these other countries, as our good friend Ron Paul was the first to point out on national television, really is the reason for 9/11 and the whole terror war. I challenge you to show me some verifiable (not some made up statement like the James Madison quotation) evidence that the terrorists (and not some big mouthed group that never does anything but talk) are out to conquer the world in the name of Ala. I am certainly prepared to back up my statements on the matter.

We are not about to allow them to be nationalized or threatened by thugs and bullies. We will protect America's soverignty.

Sounds like a contradiction in it's self. "Allow them to be nationalized." Since when are other peoples domestic behavior any of our business? And who exactly is threatening our national security besides our own government? When did any Iraqi government ever in the history of our nation attack the American people off of American soil or the foreign battlefield? In fact, in which of the 2 wars did Iraq throw the first strike or Saddam Hussein threaten to nuke or gas us on our soil? While at it, might I ask you the same question about Viet Nam, Serbia, Bosnia or Somalia?
Now, might I ask you if the Soviet Union (who was mass murdering Christians and using unspeakable torture methods) ever threatened us with nukes and follow up by asking why we didn't go to war with them?

If you have a problem with the constitution, and your grievance is sincere and for the better of the people, then you shouldn't have any objections with going through the LAWFUL channels to change it, which hopefully will force you and your fellow supporters to make sure that the change in law you propose is going to get the results you propose it for BEFORE it becomes law. Going to war without a proper declaration or banning gay mirage on a petition is sidestepping and ignoring constitutional limitations, or otherwise, checks and balances, which every politician swears an oath to refrain from doing.
Mind you that the last change in the constitution by Christian fundamentalists (prohibition) was a total disaster and turned over because of the horrible results it produced, but they at least had the decency to make the change lawfully.

brigadier
May 21, 2008, 02:42 AM
BTW.
I come from a Christian family, I understand Christian law, have read the bible from cover to cover and am even working on learning the Latin language. I am well schooled in Christian history (I am a historian in medieval history) study Christian philosophy, live on the cutting edge of the scientific studies in answering the question of whether or not there is a god etc. I am also in tune with some of the deeper christian theologians, teachers and authors, including but not limited to Elizabeth Clare (seen as an occultist, but a preacher of Christian themes none the less) Joseph Smith, Bishop Sheen, Fr. Croupy, GK Chesterton, Scott Hahn, Elron Hubbard, William Branham, Martin Luther etc. I even have a book out that involves St. Juan of Capistrano, a very fascinating person whom you probably know nothing about. And yes, I am also very well schooled in Christian prophecy and miracles. In fact, I LIVE in one of the biggest miracle hotbeds in the world.
However, as I have mentioned, I have also studied religious and world (particularly east European and Balkan) history, as well as things like the enlightenment. I am sure by this point you don't know what my spiritual beliefs are and that's the way I like it.
Studying these things will make it very clear to Christians and Atheists alike, why the religious associations are strictly prohibited in the US constitution, which not only protects religions from each other and non-believers from religions, but also protects the very quality of religious practice within themselves. Jesus himself encouraged that religious principals should be practiced on a voluntary basis. Our constitution supports this.

TraderJack
May 21, 2008, 10:54 AM
I just posted a comment about Mr. Paul.
If you persist in trying to bait me, I'll just reply with a quote from Jeff Cooper - “I would rather be your friend, but if you are not interested in that, I am prepared to be a capable and efficient enemy.”

You need my address?

mojohand
May 23, 2008, 03:31 PM
That went for an intersting, inciteful, and spirited discussion/debate, right into the gutter...your last comment was uncalled for Tradejack

TraderJack
May 23, 2008, 03:47 PM
You're entitled to your opinion.
These forums are for discussion and sharing opinions, as a way of long range communication. Their purpose is not for shouting someone down or to try and intimidate members with one's wealth of credentials or one's position in the pantheon of intellectuals...

I always thought they were a friendly palce to hang out... But if you push me, I push back.
Regards,
TraderJack

brigadier
May 23, 2008, 10:07 PM
I showed you no disrespect nor did I ever try to intimidate you. Just relax man, think it over and take a rational approach.

DomMega
May 24, 2008, 07:26 AM
Also make sure you all go ahead and support the new bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives H.R. 5782. Essentially, this bill will make it lawful for any CCW holder of any state to legally carry their firearm into any other state within the United States. Your state permit will now be honored everywhere in America, I hope you’ll all do your part to get this passed, because states like California, New York and Illinois won’t be able to tell you NO anymore when it comes to defending yourself and your families. This will not only help and assist Californians but each and everyone of the rest of us.

ArfinGreebly
May 25, 2008, 01:18 AM
I will pretend that I am shocked and amazed that this thread has devolved into a discussion of both politics and religion, having drifted away from activism in the way a power boat drifts along the water pushed along by a rooster tail.

I'm also seeing personal attacks.

Now, I'm a little grumpy, having basically had little to no Internet access for a few days, and rather than lay about me with a ban stick for the infractions I've seen thus far, I'm just gonna put a lid on this one and go practice my breathing.

I will, however, make a couple of observations.

California is not a lost cause. The infiltrators who have taken over the government there were long-term planners and very patient in their incremental takeover.

Restoring California to a livable and viable condition socially and legally will take time, commitment, energy, money, stubbornness, endurance, and the same kind of dedication that it took to screw it up in the first place.

It may take another 40-50 years to bring it back.

Those of us who don't live in CA can help those who DO live there by making the rest of the country sane, one state at a time.

It's harder to argue for your insanity if you're all alone and have no one of who you can say, "well, see, they're all doing it, too!"

So, if you want to resume the ACTIVISM part of this discussion, go ahead with a new thread.

Anyone who's feeling particularly bold can reprise the personal attacks. I need the exercise.

If you enjoyed reading about "Californians Plan Anti-Legislation Protest" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!