Meanwhile in California...

Resist!

Do not register your weapons, period! Tell a friend and tell them to tell as many friends as possible.

What are they going to do if no one registers?

Civil disobedience is the only way to go if this passes!

RetiredUSNChief said:

California needs to suffer a huge setback in gun control legislation vis-à-vis a 14th Amendment and 2nd Amendment lawsuit.

Click to expand...

As a former resident of the PRK, I doubt that this will ever happen. The population centers like LA and SF are filled with people who will continue to elect the morons who foist these laws on citizens. The number of these voters is increasing and is likely to grow much larger once the one-party political machine gives voting rights to illegal aliens as is bound to happen. Worse still, a lawsuit, if upheld by a lower court, will simply die in the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals based in SF. Want proof, research Peruta v. San Diego County.

On February 13, 2014, a 2 to 1 decision was published by a panel of three 9th Circuit judges that affirms the right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun in public for lawful self-defense. This decision found San Diego County's restrictive policy in combination with California's denial of open carry ultimately resulted in the destruction of the typical law-abiding, responsible citizen's right to bear arms in any manner in public, thereby violating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Unless overridden, the decision would force California to become a shall-issue state in regards to concealed carry permits.

But wait, as the TV pitch guy says, there's more. On December 3, 2014, almost 10 months later, the 9th Circuit announced that a judge on the circuit called for a vote on whether the case should be reheard en banc, i.e., by the full court. The court gave the parties, and any Amici curiae, 21 days to file briefs setting forth their positions whether the case should be reheard en banc.

On March 26, 2015, 4 months later, the 9th Circuit finally got around to announcing that they would hear the case, along with Richards v. Prieto (another gun rights related case), en banc, including setting aside the original rulings in the cases and stating that they are not to be used as case law. The cases were argued on June 16, 2015. As of today, nearly a year later, nothing has happened. The process is being slow-rolled. A decision will probably never be rendered, and if by some miracle one is forthcoming, it will certainly void the original decisions leaving taxpayers poorer, lawyers richer, and CA gun owners with their hopes for real common sense policies once again dashed.

danez71 said:

It applies to centerfire semi auto rifles.

The funny thing about is that if it goes thru, all of the law abiding people that have bullet buttons can now take them off since they'll have to be registered as assault weapons anyways.

Click to expand...

they are playing a long term strategy.

lots of us are doing all we can.

this is wrong and illegal and our overlords know it.

Corpral_Agarn said:

they are playing a long term strategy.

lots of us are doing all we can.

this is wrong and illegal and our overlords know it.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Next would be to completely ban assault rifles which would ban every semiautomatic center fire rifle if this goes thru.


There seems to be a contest of 'who can be the most anti gun' right now in CA with competing propositions and bill.

There is even in-fighting with the Dems bad mouthing each other for taking different selfserving approaches.

Seconded. My concern for Californians with bills like this, is after requiring registering rifles as "assault weapons", a bill will introduced outlawing "assault weapons".

Colorado Shooter, if you thing Denver pretty much over rides the rest of the state, you should see the mess here in Illinois!!

Chicago runs the state.

A few things:

This is an excellent article to read:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

We KNOW it's the end game.

CA pulled the same thing they want to do again a few years ago with SKS rifles. I think they only got 30% or so when they resorted to confiscation.

The population centers crushing the rest of a state is a problem; we need to devise a political solution. Somebody smarter than me will have to handle that task. A Constitutional Convention perhaps? 45 states "allow" concealed carry. They'd lose in a landslide

The very essence of freedom is the freedom to make your own choice, which includes the wrong choice. Likewise popular speech needs no protection; by its nature unpopular speech needs protection.

The boxes: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order." We are running out of options in at least 5 states.

Those proposing these gun laws are guilty of treason; they have not lived up to the Oath they took. They need to be aware of the penalty.

Trump vs Hitlary: Rs are scrambling for a way to rid themselves of him. We need a viable 3rd party - Libertarian would be my choice.

War on Drugs & War on Terror: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." The main casualty has been our civil rights; the 4th Amendment has been reduced to surplus words.

If Trump is ousted and runs 3rd party - Hitlary will win and count on a full assault against your BIRTHRIGHT. At that point I believe a revolution would be justified. Don't wait until everyone panics. Buy cheap & stack deep. As Abe Lincoln said "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." We have a RIGHT to do so.

The concept of self-preservation if the basic civil right; without that, it's impossible to defend any other civil rights. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) - emphasis added.

3% of 300 million is 9 million. Never in history has an armed force that large been created. It would be totally impossible to defeat. I estimate 2 million LE and military ASSUMING they all break their oath - and many will, but not all. Yes, the US military is a daunting force to reckon with, but let's not forget Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan . . . where the numbers were nothing like I imagine they'd be in this scenario. IT would be a bloody mess. IT would last a very long time but no matter what 9 million vs 2 million is a hopeless endeavor. I feel sorry for LE and .Mil - they are forced to be the foot soldiers of tyranny. Entire states would refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Texas has repatriated its gold and secession is a real topic in the West. Legally I believe secession is a right under the constitution (a long topic for another day).

Bottom line: if you give up the means to resist tyranny, this is what it will come to. I've already made my decision and at some point you'll have to pick a side. I'll die, I'm not Rambo but I refuse to die like this:

old lady new shooter said:

bluzman:
Michel and everybody else say no matter which way the decision goes it will be appealed.

All the more reason to make sure we get a President who will appoint textualist Supreme Court justices.

Click to expand...

I agree but only if a decision ever emerges from the 9th Circuit. Then even if there is an appeal, there is no guarantee that SCOTUS would grant a review, and if it did I wouldn't count on Roberts being part of a Conservative majority. In any event, it will be a very long time, in this writers opinion, before Mr. Peruta and CA gun owners get a decision one way or the other.

Maryland_Shooter said:

A few things:

This is an excellent article to read:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

We KNOW it's the end game.

Click to expand...

As abhorrent as I find the notion, at least an attempt to follow the repeal process would be intellectually honest, something that's sadly lacking in current efforts.

So I second the cited author's motion. For those who really think the Second Amendment needs to be changed, there's a process for that. Start following it. We'll fight you every inch of the way, but at least we can start respecting you.

In the meantime stop infringing on it.