Ca Assembly passes AB2235
- Thread starter gbp
- Start date
- Status
Yellowfin
Member
The demographic change is due to people like us getting hacked off with the laws and leaving, just as the antis planned, and us not being replaced by the newcomers who don't look like you or me. For some reason or another the group of people at the range and at NRA meetings doesn't look anything like what I see at my apartment complex, at the mall, or at the grocery store. Why is nobody doing anything to fix that problem?
California's budget problem should be a shining example to the rest of the states about running off productive citizens. It's politicians keep passing laws that anger tax payers while illegals and non-working poor are given ever increasing benefits.
I see more and more Californians retiring to my state, not only because state taxes are lower (not by much nowadays), but because the overall cost of living and crime are much lower. Sadly many bring their Cali attitudes with them not realizing that attitude is what got California the way it is.
One old-timer who worked in a shipyard for 42years told me the only thing he missed about SanDiego was the weather, but would'nt go back for it.
I see more and more Californians retiring to my state, not only because state taxes are lower (not by much nowadays), but because the overall cost of living and crime are much lower. Sadly many bring their Cali attitudes with them not realizing that attitude is what got California the way it is.
One old-timer who worked in a shipyard for 42years told me the only thing he missed about SanDiego was the weather, but would'nt go back for it.
What are Arizona and Nevada's budget problems an example of?
What is our national budget problem an example of?
You folks need to start thinking a wee bit more big picture than you are.
That pain in your left arm? The longer you dismiss it, the longer you keep saying "I feel fine", the more likely you are to find yourself lying in a silk and walnut box with someone standing over you tearfully whispering, "he shouldn't have ignored that pain in his left arm". That pain in your left arm means something... and it usually isn't confined to just your arm, and it usually doesn't originate there. Just because the rest of you feels good right now, doesn't mean you still will in about 30 minutes.
Yellowfin is right. The range does have a different make up than my neighborhood. The best solution if not the only solution is to take new people out shooting. I found that a lot of people want to try it but aren't sure how or where. It can be daunting for a new person. I think that darn near everytime I take a person to go shooting for the first time, I may not end up with a gun nut but probably did end of with a supporter of gun rights.
JCF: Most people will put up with high taxes as long as its not high taxes and more stupid laws. Yes, there are always stupid laws being enacted, but California seems to lead the way. You hear of people leaving California because of its laws, not people leaving the US.
Would you blame an inner city ghetto family leaving the ghetto for a better life?
Would you blame an inner city ghetto family leaving the ghetto for a better life?
And then they leave to try again.
What hacks me off the most about California liberals is that the early ones screwed up the state so badly that the ones that could left. They moved to Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, Tucson etc. and set up shop to try and create their Utopian dream again. Ignoring the smoking wreckage they left behind. After all, the reason that they failed in California wasn't that they were wrong it was that outside influences and the conservatives with their pesky Constitution just wouldn't give them total control so there were too many exceptions and loopholes for folks to wiggle through. The remaining California leftist are hard core believers but we'll see how long they stay when their Utopia turns into a bankrupt welfare/police state.
The ones that did leave were politically active and immediately attacked the, usually fairly conservative but passive political structures of other cities and states. Before we knew it we suddenly had California liberals running our cities and proposing and passing all kinds of socialist/communist/fascist/leftist laws. Taxes go up schools become left wing indoctrination centers guns are outlawed, property is seized. Businesses and productive people start to leave and the people left holding the bag say "what the H happened?".
If their Utopia fails again they'll just move on. Like locusts or the plague.
What hacks me off the most about California liberals is that the early ones screwed up the state so badly that the ones that could left. They moved to Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, Tucson etc. and set up shop to try and create their Utopian dream again. Ignoring the smoking wreckage they left behind. After all, the reason that they failed in California wasn't that they were wrong it was that outside influences and the conservatives with their pesky Constitution just wouldn't give them total control so there were too many exceptions and loopholes for folks to wiggle through. The remaining California leftist are hard core believers but we'll see how long they stay when their Utopia turns into a bankrupt welfare/police state.
The ones that did leave were politically active and immediately attacked the, usually fairly conservative but passive political structures of other cities and states. Before we knew it we suddenly had California liberals running our cities and proposing and passing all kinds of socialist/communist/fascist/leftist laws. Taxes go up schools become left wing indoctrination centers guns are outlawed, property is seized. Businesses and productive people start to leave and the people left holding the bag say "what the H happened?".
If their Utopia fails again they'll just move on. Like locusts or the plague.
And by the way... I don't know of any research that addresses the issue of people leaving CA citing gun control laws as the primary reason, but I am going to speculate out loud that the number is in fact exceptionally small. I wouldn't get too confident that the reasons posted during a discussion of gun laws by the membership of a firearms hobbyist forum actually are actually representative of the general population. My guess is that the majority of people leaving CA would cite housing costs as their primary reason.
And people do indeed leave the USA due to what they perceive to be stupid laws, bad policies, and an assessment of their inability to do anything about them. In fact, up to 125,000 of them moved to Canada during the Vietnam war.
JFC: I'll tell you that the anti gun attitudes and laws and of California are a major reason I don't live there. Gun laws are a PRIME concern in my decisions pertaining to where I live, shop and do business. I try to walk the walk so to speak.
So no I didn't move out of California because of its' laws... I didn't move to California because of its' laws. Or Denver for that matter.
So no I didn't move out of California because of its' laws... I didn't move to California because of its' laws. Or Denver for that matter.
More people are flooding in to get their piece of the "American Dream" than they are leaving.
That's why California is so screwed up, you've got the ultra rich calling the shots and the super poor struggling to survive themselves and/or living off of the people in the middle who don't really get much of a say in what gets passed into law.
Remember all the support that Prop. 187 got from regular Americans and how it passed?
That decision was the will of the people and it got overturned because it affected big business (by depriving them of their cheap labor) and the large Hispanic population (who would definately like to stay because they've got it better over here than they do south of the border) who didn't like it and who managed to get it overturned.
Same thing here, except that this was dreamed up by the ultra rich.
Uh huh.
Do you know where Nancy Pelosi was born and raised? Maryland.
How about Barbara Boxer? New York.
Funny thing is... there seem to be a whole lot of Californians who don't actually originate in this state. In fact, there seem to be a whole lot of notable anti-gun folks who have migrated here in order to nurture their political beliefs
Of course... that's why they come HERE. None of this will EVER impact anyone outside of CA. It will NEVER flow outside of the iron curtain. NO ONE would tolerate it outside of CA. Why waste effort here?
Right?
Oh wait... there was that Pelosi lady. But I'm sure that was just an isolated incident.
PS: Sarah Brady? Born in Missouri and raised in Virginia. Bill Clinton? Arkansas...
LOL...
SoCalShooter
Member
WTH no matter how much writing and sending and calling we do it doesnot seem to ever matter.
And it does not matter if it goes to the govenator cause he is in cahoots with them anyways and will sign anything he is told to. this some how has to break some preemption laws somehow
And it does not matter if it goes to the govenator cause he is in cahoots with them anyways and will sign anything he is told to. this some how has to break some preemption laws somehow
Yeah, I know.
I was just illustrating that the running to greener pastures tactic isn't something peculiar to folks such as yourself. Draft dodgers did it too.
Funny thing is, despite the fact that things are as good for them as they are in California... what with all the socialism and free-rides and all, the greatest growth in illegal immigrant population from 2000-2006 occurred in Texas. Why do you suppose that is? Weird.
Hey... did you know that despite it being the liberal infested, anti-gun den of pus that it is, your chances of being murdered in San Francisco are less than they are in Amarillo and about the same as they are in Lubbock? I just don't get it.
Last edited:
Ok. Thanks for letting me know.
I moved to California because of money and recreation. I moved out of California to Texas because of cost of living. I moved back to California because of money and recreation. None of it had squat to do with gun laws.
I'm glad we're better acquainted though.
SoCalShooter
Member
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/smartgun.htm
Even the VPC says they do not believe it will be effective enough to impliment.
Even the VPC says they do not believe it will be effective enough to impliment.
fastbolt
Member
Thanks for the 2004 info. I hadn't looked at the number of DROS forms processed. I'd only gone by what I'd been told by folks from a couple of different firearms companies. I'd never been interested, or had reason, to question their info about handguns sales or inquire how it had been derived.
Might be interesting to start asking for some figures.
Very likely the law limiting handgun purchases to 1 in a 30 day period back in 2000 had an influence, too.
So, I just did a quick check of manufacturing statistics. Not as many handguns manufactured as some folks might think. Interesting numbers at these links:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm (Note the availability of 2005 & 2006 figures in this link)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_7_48/ai_105797596/pg_2
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/4748
http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/release.php?id=589&year=2005&month=3
Anyway ...
Many folks have more than a single over-riding reason to live in the state in which they live.
Many folks have more than a single reason for deciding to leave a state, too.
CA laws will influence other states.
This isn't the CA in which I grew up ... but what state is?
I've just decided I'd like to move to a state which more closely approximates the CA of my childhood ... in many respects ... for my retirement.
I've been visiting the Pacific Northwest for many years. I have some family up there. I like the people I've met there over the years.
I'll miss the CA weather and coastline.
But not enough to want to stay here.
Might be interesting to start asking for some figures.
Very likely the law limiting handgun purchases to 1 in a 30 day period back in 2000 had an influence, too.
So, I just did a quick check of manufacturing statistics. Not as many handguns manufactured as some folks might think. Interesting numbers at these links:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm (Note the availability of 2005 & 2006 figures in this link)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_7_48/ai_105797596/pg_2
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/4748
http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/release.php?id=589&year=2005&month=3
Anyway ...
Many folks have more than a single over-riding reason to live in the state in which they live.
Many folks have more than a single reason for deciding to leave a state, too.
CA laws will influence other states.
This isn't the CA in which I grew up ... but what state is?
I've just decided I'd like to move to a state which more closely approximates the CA of my childhood ... in many respects ... for my retirement.
I've been visiting the Pacific Northwest for many years. I have some family up there. I like the people I've met there over the years.
I'll miss the CA weather and coastline.
But not enough to want to stay here.
Last edited:
Well that's not exactly true.
Murder rates for San Francisco middle of page.
http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Francisco-California.html
Murder rates for Amarillo Texas middle of page.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Amarillo-Texas.html
Murder rates for Lubbock in the middle of the page.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Lubbock-Texas.html
Lubbock's about the same as Amarillo.
See what I mean?
Your chances of being murdered are actually higher in an anti-firearms freedom state.
Where did you hear otherwise?
MarcusWendt
Member
I keep looking at my maps, checking CNN and I can't seem to figure out when San Francisco and Amarillo became states.
The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting stats for 2003.
They index each city relative to the national average (represented as 1.0), in categories related to violent and property crimes. A cumulative general safety index (represented as All Violent and All Property) is then calculated.
Murder
San Francisco – 1.17
Lubbock – .88
Amarillo- 1.44
Dallas- 2.40
Wichita Falls- 1.00
In other words, for 2003, San Francisco’s murder rate was 1.17 times the national average. Worse than Lubbock, slightly worse than Wichita Falls, and better than Amarillo or Dallas.
Rape
San Francisco – .77
Lubbock – 1.34
Amarillo- 1.49
Dallas- 1.54
Wichita Falls- 1.29
Thus, in 2003, Dallas and Amarillo had a prevalence of rape approximately twice that of San Francisco. The rate was somewhat higher in Lubbock and Wichita Falls.
Robbery
San Francisco – 1.81
Lubbock – .69
Amarillo- .96
Dallas- 2.96
Wichita Falls- .87
San Francisco’s robbery rates, for 2003, were much, much higher than Lubbock, Amarillo and Wichita falls. It was much, much lower than Dallas.
Agg. Assault –
San Francisco – .85
Lubbock – 2.63
Amarillo- 1.55
Dallas- 1.81
Wichita Falls- 2.18
San Francisco’s rate of aggravated assault, for 2003, was much lower than those of Lubbock, Amarillo, Dallas, or Wichita Falls.
All Violent –
San Francisco – 1.24
Lubbock – 1.94
Amarillo- 1.40
Dallas- 2.29
Wichita Falls- 1.73
All tolled, in 2003, the overall rate of violent crime in San Francisco was lower than that of Amarillo, Lubbock, Dallas and Wichita Falls.
Now I would be extremely reluctant to attribute any of that to the presence or absence of firearms. In fact, IMHO, doing so is a disservice to the cause of gun ownership because it has a tendency to result in an obfuscation of the issue of rights, and instead leads folks down the road of attempting to prove the worthiness of their position (pro or anti) through a battle of statistical one-upmanship.
The anti-gun establishment has, for decades, attempted to legitimate their position by demonstrating causality between private gun ownership and high crime. We have countered that argument by attempting desperately to prove causality between private gun ownership and increased safety. The reality is that there are many factors involved in making a community safe or violent. High rates of private gun ownership don’t make a society safe any more than high rates of sneaker ownership make it athletic. Nor does an absence of firearms result in low levels of violence.
If we want to further the issue of gun rights, the emphasis should be on establishing and demonstrating the relative insignificance of the tools used in the commission of violence on the prevalence thereof. Violent society is violent society, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your guns. Similarly, safe society is safe for reasons well beyond the presence of guns. If violence resulted from the presence of guns, small rural Texas towns would be an absolute bloodbath. If safety resulted from the presence of guns, Oakland and South Central LA would look like a Methodist church service.
Further, the incessant process of trying to establish that gun-friendliness leads to safety only results in a division and alienation of the parties that most need to be unified in this fight.
Sit back and harp on California… the fact is that the NRA claims approximately 300,000 of its highly classified and variably reported 2.5-4 million members in CA and the major players in the firearms industry obtain sufficient revenue from CA sales that they are still motivated to jump through the idiotic hoops that have been established for them to do business here.
You all can go on and on about how your state is more important or offers more, etc.... but the fact is that the poorer you get, the poorer you are. Losing the support of ONE gun-owner is to the detriment of the fight... much less alienating the entire state of California.
They index each city relative to the national average (represented as 1.0), in categories related to violent and property crimes. A cumulative general safety index (represented as All Violent and All Property) is then calculated.
Murder
San Francisco – 1.17
Lubbock – .88
Amarillo- 1.44
Dallas- 2.40
Wichita Falls- 1.00
In other words, for 2003, San Francisco’s murder rate was 1.17 times the national average. Worse than Lubbock, slightly worse than Wichita Falls, and better than Amarillo or Dallas.
Rape
San Francisco – .77
Lubbock – 1.34
Amarillo- 1.49
Dallas- 1.54
Wichita Falls- 1.29
Thus, in 2003, Dallas and Amarillo had a prevalence of rape approximately twice that of San Francisco. The rate was somewhat higher in Lubbock and Wichita Falls.
Robbery
San Francisco – 1.81
Lubbock – .69
Amarillo- .96
Dallas- 2.96
Wichita Falls- .87
San Francisco’s robbery rates, for 2003, were much, much higher than Lubbock, Amarillo and Wichita falls. It was much, much lower than Dallas.
Agg. Assault –
San Francisco – .85
Lubbock – 2.63
Amarillo- 1.55
Dallas- 1.81
Wichita Falls- 2.18
San Francisco’s rate of aggravated assault, for 2003, was much lower than those of Lubbock, Amarillo, Dallas, or Wichita Falls.
All Violent –
San Francisco – 1.24
Lubbock – 1.94
Amarillo- 1.40
Dallas- 2.29
Wichita Falls- 1.73
All tolled, in 2003, the overall rate of violent crime in San Francisco was lower than that of Amarillo, Lubbock, Dallas and Wichita Falls.
Now I would be extremely reluctant to attribute any of that to the presence or absence of firearms. In fact, IMHO, doing so is a disservice to the cause of gun ownership because it has a tendency to result in an obfuscation of the issue of rights, and instead leads folks down the road of attempting to prove the worthiness of their position (pro or anti) through a battle of statistical one-upmanship.
The anti-gun establishment has, for decades, attempted to legitimate their position by demonstrating causality between private gun ownership and high crime. We have countered that argument by attempting desperately to prove causality between private gun ownership and increased safety. The reality is that there are many factors involved in making a community safe or violent. High rates of private gun ownership don’t make a society safe any more than high rates of sneaker ownership make it athletic. Nor does an absence of firearms result in low levels of violence.
If we want to further the issue of gun rights, the emphasis should be on establishing and demonstrating the relative insignificance of the tools used in the commission of violence on the prevalence thereof. Violent society is violent society, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your guns. Similarly, safe society is safe for reasons well beyond the presence of guns. If violence resulted from the presence of guns, small rural Texas towns would be an absolute bloodbath. If safety resulted from the presence of guns, Oakland and South Central LA would look like a Methodist church service.
Further, the incessant process of trying to establish that gun-friendliness leads to safety only results in a division and alienation of the parties that most need to be unified in this fight.
Sit back and harp on California… the fact is that the NRA claims approximately 300,000 of its highly classified and variably reported 2.5-4 million members in CA and the major players in the firearms industry obtain sufficient revenue from CA sales that they are still motivated to jump through the idiotic hoops that have been established for them to do business here.
You all can go on and on about how your state is more important or offers more, etc.... but the fact is that the poorer you get, the poorer you are. Losing the support of ONE gun-owner is to the detriment of the fight... much less alienating the entire state of California.
Last edited:
Yes, it is.
AND???
Does it make sense to you to abandon efforts at salvaging a region that represents 4% of all national firearms sales?
Does it make sense to you to abandon advocacy on behalf of 300,000 CA NRA members?
How important do you think that 4% is to the firearms industry as a whole?
You know what I find interesting? The fact that I repeatedly see threads in this forum dedicated to "I taught someone to shoot, I converted an anti-gun person", etc., etc., etc.
YET... this nation has a group of individuals fighting like crazy for their rights among a hostile majority, and the sentiment from the self-styled "pro-gunners" out there is to deride and advocate retreat.
If and when this fight is lost in California, guess where it is going? Guess where the anti-gun pols are going?
A few years from now, when you all are receiving that letter that says turn them in or go to jail; when you all are coming to the realization that your big, glorious last stand came and went in the form of a whisper of flatulence because low and behold you and every other responsible gun owner aren't actually going to start shooting at ANYONE... remember California and how good you feel today that this isn't your problem.
Maybe it will take the sting off.
MarcusWendt
Member
Bravo!!! Bravo!!!!
Oh come on, say it ain't so. You mean when the Brady Bunch and all the other groups opposed to 2A win in CA and don't have to spend their money here they will spend it in other states? Really? Nah, they wouldn't. They wouldn't allow their lobbyists and big money donations to wage this battle in other states would they?
- Status
