Jerry Brown signed horrible new gun laws for CA

Status
Not open for further replies.
My viewpoint on this from outside California is purely strategic at this point



TCB



And my view point is that your strategy is flawed no matter how you look at it.

You have said things in the past to the effect of the Californians that move to other states ruin those other states. But now, suddenly, that is what you make to be the foundation of your strategy.

You said "we are not sufficiently united" but out line a strategy of abandoning states in 'The United States' and voluntarily forfeiting those states to the antis which will only make them stronger.


I have explained why I believe your theory is flawed. I have provided examples, in simple summary form, of why its flawed.

I have also shown some of the contradictions of your statements.


You have your thoughts and I have mine.

Fair enough.
 
Well, we're off to court. These laws will all be challenged, and some may be overturned, we'll see.

Several years ago an ammunition background check law was signed by the Governator and it got tossed by the courts. We'll have to see how this holds up.

As a native Californian, though, I have to say that California is no longer American. We have so many immigrants, even illegals, that the Constitution and American values are no longer relevant. Just to be clear, California isn't America any longer.

I know, that makes me a racist, or whatever the latest pejorative is, but it's true.

Mauserguy
 
Mauserguy, last ammo law was tossed by a state judge on the grounds of vagueness. He didn't get to any substantive issues.

As I opined above, I gotta think this new ammo law has multiple vulnerabilities.

But as I also noted, that doesn't necessarily matter, any more.

Immigration (legal and illegal) is a separate topic, but what's topical and true is that the erosion of the rule of law (in this case "judicial legislation" negating constitutional provisions, in effect) in CA makes it much less American than it used to be. But that erosion is not limited to CA, obviously. It's occurring everywhere to some extent, but in CA it's galloping along and gaining momentum.
 
I just read this on another gun forum. The poster is usually very knowledgeable. I have not confirmed it myself at this point.
What about assault weapons that were already registered in 1991?
 
You have said things in the past to the effect of the Californians that move to other states ruin those other states.
I should think someone from CA/AZ would understand that there are different types of Californians...or maybe your experience tells you there are not (I'm still hopeful, however)

If there are freedom-minded Californians left (who knows, maybe there aren't?) we need them out of that pit, wasting their energies, and both contributing to and enjoying freedom on the outside, yesterday. The tide of legislation in CA and from there to the federal is not stemmed by their local resistance at this point; in what possible way will five more years of fruitless steamrolled 'resistance' counteract what just got signed into law? We all know you're pinning all your hopes on the federal courts to save your bacon when these AWB/etc laws come up for judicial review at SCOTUS; it's all that's left for you.

Well, SCOTUS isn't going to be too friendly by then, given the electoral map at this point. The only way to improve things on that front, is to increase the representative power of gun friendly areas, while sapping them from anti-gun strongholds. We MIGHT be able to get legislators/presidents/judges on our side into positions of authority that way.

What is your alternative to achieve victory? Is victory even the goal for CA gun owners at this point, or just mere 'existence' under horrible conditions for as long as possible? What is the point of 'winning' in that case? Freedom feeds on itself, as does tyranny; why shouldn't Californians enjoy the bounty of opportunity in the many other states? States that could and will make far better use of their talents than their previous home.

You said "we are not sufficiently united" but out line a strategy of abandoning states in 'The United States' and voluntarily forfeiting those states to the antis which will only make them stronger.
Who is the "we" you think I referred to? The State of California? The people of California? The gun owners of California?

I think you may be confusing "unity" and "victory," a logical failure seen all too often among those eager to go along to get along. "Unity" is the collection of like-minded individuals in pursuit of a common goal. "Victory" is gun owners being able to live peaceably in California without unwarranted abuse or reprisal. "Victory" will not happen from inside California, though I am open to realistic explanations that show how I might be mistaken. "Victory" can not be delivered from outside California at this time, because gun owners have insufficient representative power, nationally. California still has a sufficiently large population of gun owners to shift that balance of power in our favor, so long as they are not still located in California.

I shouldn't even be calling this a 'strategy,' it's roughly how history will play out, regardless. My only hope is that if it can be accelerated through encouragement, the gun owners' strategic hand is accordingly strengthened. If we allow it to string along as a sometimes-neutral/sometimes-hostile game nationally, like we have, then the base population of gun owners we have to work with will gradually evaporate as it has in California over the decades.

1) California passes laws too horrible to continue living as a gun owner under
2) Gun owners leave, along with other simlarly-effected undesirables
3) California, having achieved Pyrrhic victory over gun owners, doubles down on all the other self-destructive legislative endeavors
4) Gun friendly areas see a boom in population, economy, and representative apportionment, along with rising popularity of gun rights causes*
5) California, depopulated of its most law-abiding and cheerfully productive citizens (b/c of gun laws as well as other restrictions) descends into criminal mediocrity. Population centers collapse as residents flee for opportunities elsewhere
6) Gun friendly areas, having wisely* bolstered their laws, constitutions, and courts, are able to stymie efforts by destructive transplants to dismantle hard-won freedoms
7) California, now badly weakened by the inefficiency of corrupt bureaucracy and widespread criminality, and vulnerable to federal congressional action due to its population decline (and likely, court rulings at the hands of judges who are no longer appointed by presidents so beholden to California), is forcibly made to respect the rule of law, as originally set forth.
8) National Guard blocks illegal attempts to impose the will of California's governor, the state likely loses its right to pass any laws concerning weapons or firearms for some time period (see: Voting Rights Act). Lots of resistance, and likely civil unrest for a time.
9) Exposed and targeted, long time political machines are deconstructed and replaced with popularly-representative replacements with independent oversight. Gradually, life with less corruption or restrictions becomes normalized, and expected.
10) Now free of the laws and systems which made life & business impossible, California once again becomes a gold rush for all manner of human endeavor, and a boom is seen once more.

It's a cyclical thing, trending between restriction & growth to some degree in any healthy society. It's only when the trends are denied or defied or forcibly broken, that things are allowed to get so bad as to sink into a permanent state of despotism, which is called a "Dark Age." We're nowhere near that point, nationally, but California herself is rapidly approaching the point where it can do nothing but drag the rest of us along --and it's in part due to residents who absolutely hate their unwinnable situation, but refuse to take meaningful action to remove themselves from it.

Giving up on unfriendly gun states is the anti 2A dream come true. <let them reap their crummy nightmare; it won't last long before the ground falls away beneath them and they wake up (or are woken up)>
It makes it easier for the Feds and courts to take away your Rights since there will be anti-2A momentum and you'll already be used to giving up.<that 'momentum' will associate with corruption & failed economies, meanwhile exploding population centers in vibrant, freer districts will be now calling the shots>

TCB

*Tou see this, Californian expats? It is YOUR responsibility to engage the pro-gun initiative once out from under the bootheel; do not neglect it like your fathers back on the West Coast did in years past, or we're right back at Step 1 with fewer places to run to
*Tou see this, pro-gunners? It is OUR responsibility to engage our freindly legislatures and courts to ensure a strong, permanent frame work exists to deflect future challenges on gun rights by the fleeing rats
 
Last edited:
What about assault weapons that were already registered in 1991?
It sounded like you get to keep them (for now), but with only 10 round mags to work with, it's not like they are even functionally 'assault weapons' anymore :rolleyes:

The flat ban on 10 round mags sets an ugly precedent for other unconditional bans, too, btw...like registered assault weapons. :uhoh:

TCB
 
It sounded like you get to keep them (for now), but with only 10 round mags to work with, it's not like they are even functionally 'assault weapons' anymore :rolleyes:

The flat ban on 10 round mags sets an ugly precedent for other unconditional bans, too, btw...like registered assault weapons. :uhoh:

TCB
I remember reading that if it was purchased before 2000 & there are no 10-round mags available, they're legal?
 
It seems to me that government leaders forcing their unreasonable beliefs on citizens without the peoples input is tyranny. It also seems to me that the unregulated militia of the United States is designed to destroy tyranny.
 
Curiosity question: Will these new laws affect the movie and TV industry that promotes gun violence with one hand and shuns it with the other (all while counting their revenue)?

Or are the providers of the arms used in movies/TV exempt?
 
The guns now used in movies and TV shows are modified so they won't chamber real cartridges. After several accidents(?) the liability insurance companies insisted on this. Legally they are not firearms.
 
PEACEFUL LEGAL armed/unarmed rallies/marches/meetings of 10's of thousands of legal gunowners is required in CA. Clearly Brown and Obama have smoked too much pot back in their college days, to think they can disarm America. Even if Brown dispatched his CA national guard, he knows that most reserve troops would mostly go on strike rather than clash with fellow legal gun owners. but America has the 2nd Amendment which WILL prevail. We will not become Australia or the UK if we don't let it happen.
 
but America has the 2nd Amendment which WILL prevail. We will not become Australia or the UK if we don't let it happen.
Given that CA has one of the largest bodies of electors I wonder what effect they will have on picking the one who might choose the next 3 Supreme Court Justices?
The fate of the 2a or our Republic rides on the outcome.
 
I do not want to pour gasoline on an already raging political fire but...

I think we need to start thinking about a "Brexit" for many states. The country is polarized like no time since 1860. One side wants to build a perfect Socialist utopia where there is no crime and everything is free, the other still believes in the old Republic.

Time to go our separate ways. No violence is necessary, just think of it as a peaceful divorce.
 
I should think someone from CA/AZ would understand that there are different types of Californians...or maybe your experience tells you there are not (I'm still hopeful, however)

If there are freedom-minded Californians left (who knows, maybe there aren't?) we need them out of that pit, wasting their energies, and both contributing to and enjoying freedom on the outside, yesterday. The tide of legislation in CA and from there to the federal is not stemmed by their local resistance at this point; in what possible way will five more years of fruitless steamrolled 'resistance' counteract what just got signed into law? We all know you're pinning all your hopes on the federal courts to save your bacon when these AWB/etc laws come up for judicial review at SCOTUS; it's all that's left for you.

Well, SCOTUS isn't going to be too friendly by then, given the electoral map at this point. The only way to improve things on that front, is to increase the representative power of gun friendly areas, while sapping them from anti-gun strongholds. We MIGHT be able to get legislators/presidents/judges on our side into positions of authority that way.

What is your alternative to achieve victory? Is victory even the goal for CA gun owners at this point, or just mere 'existence' under horrible conditions for as long as possible? What is the point of 'winning' in that case? Freedom feeds on itself, as does tyranny; why shouldn't Californians enjoy the bounty of opportunity in the many other states? States that could and will make far better use of their talents than their previous home.


Who is the "we" you think I referred to? The State of California? The people of California? The gun owners of California?

I think you may be confusing "unity" and "victory," a logical failure seen all too often among those eager to go along to get along. "Unity" is the collection of like-minded individuals in pursuit of a common goal. "Victory" is gun owners being able to live peaceably in California without unwarranted abuse or reprisal. "Victory" will not happen from inside California, though I am open to realistic explanations that show how I might be mistaken. "Victory" can not be delivered from outside California at this time, because gun owners have insufficient representative power, nationally. California still has a sufficiently large population of gun owners to shift that balance of power in our favor, so long as they are not still located in California.

I shouldn't even be calling this a 'strategy,' it's roughly how history will play out, regardless. My only hope is that if it can be accelerated through encouragement, the gun owners' strategic hand is accordingly strengthened. If we allow it to string along as a sometimes-neutral/sometimes-hostile game nationally, like we have, then the base population of gun owners we have to work with will gradually evaporate as it has in California over the decades.

1) California passes laws too horrible to continue living as a gun owner under
2) Gun owners leave, along with other simlarly-effected undesirables
3) California, having achieved Pyrrhic victory over gun owners, doubles down on all the other self-destructive legislative endeavors
4) Gun friendly areas see a boom in population, economy, and representative apportionment, along with rising popularity of gun rights causes*
5) California, depopulated of its most law-abiding and cheerfully productive citizens (b/c of gun laws as well as other restrictions) descends into criminal mediocrity. Population centers collapse as residents flee for opportunities elsewhere
6) Gun friendly areas, having wisely* bolstered their laws, constitutions, and courts, are able to stymie efforts by destructive transplants to dismantle hard-won freedoms
7) California, now badly weakened by the inefficiency of corrupt bureaucracy and widespread criminality, and vulnerable to federal congressional action due to its population decline (and likely, court rulings at the hands of judges who are no longer appointed by presidents so beholden to California), is forcibly made to respect the rule of law, as originally set forth.
8) National Guard blocks illegal attempts to impose the will of California's governor, the state likely loses its right to pass any laws concerning weapons or firearms for some time period (see: Voting Rights Act). Lots of resistance, and likely civil unrest for a time.
9) Exposed and targeted, long time political machines are deconstructed and replaced with popularly-representative replacements with independent oversight. Gradually, life with less corruption or restrictions becomes normalized, and expected.
10) Now free of the laws and systems which made life & business impossible, California once again becomes a gold rush for all manner of human endeavor, and a boom is seen once more.

It's a cyclical thing, trending between restriction & growth to some degree in any healthy society. It's only when the trends are denied or defied or forcibly broken, that things are allowed to get so bad as to sink into a permanent state of despotism, which is called a "Dark Age." We're nowhere near that point, nationally, but California herself is rapidly approaching the point where it can do nothing but drag the rest of us along --and it's in part due to residents who absolutely hate their unwinnable situation, but refuse to take meaningful action to remove themselves from it.



TCB

*Tou see this, Californian expats? It is YOUR responsibility to engage the pro-gun initiative once out from under the bootheel; do not neglect it like your fathers back on the West Coast did in years past, or we're right back at Step 1 with fewer places to run to
*Tou see this, pro-gunners? It is OUR responsibility to engage our freindly legislatures and courts to ensure a strong, permanent frame work exists to deflect future challenges on gun rights by the fleeing rats

That might be the winner of the most voluminous post full of rhetorical questions.
 
Will any of these new laws affect the buying of ammo components, as in brass, primers, powder, or bullets?
 
PEACEFUL LEGAL armed/unarmed rallies/marches/meetings of 10's of thousands of legal gunowners is required in CA. Clearly Brown and Obama have smoked too much pot back in their college days, to think they can disarm America. Even if Brown dispatched his CA national guard, he knows that most reserve troops would mostly go on strike rather than clash with fellow legal gun owners. but America has the 2nd Amendment which WILL prevail. We will not become Australia or the UK if we don't let it happen.
Brown and Obama were elected by majorities of voters. If we the people don't like their policies we are free to vote in someone else with different policies.
 
I do not want to pour gasoline on an already raging political fire but...

I think we need to start thinking about a "Brexit" for many states. The country is polarized like no time since 1860. One side wants to build a perfect Socialist utopia where there is no crime and everything is free, the other still believes in the old Republic.

Time to go our separate ways. No violence is necessary, just think of it as a peaceful divorce.


This post is pretty disconnected from any reality.

The only way to have an amiable divorce is for the involved parties to have nothing but indifference left for each other. If you think you see that in our country today, I don't know what news source you're using. Just your observation that we're as polarized as we were back in 1860 destroys the premise.

To see this as a solution indicates a complete lack of understanding of the United States Of America. It shows a lack of knowledge of the freedoms, the spirit, and the events, proud and shameful, that developed us into the greatness that the Globalists wish to destroy.

Or perhaps you agree with those that wish to destroy this great country.

Over my dead body.

ETA: Apologies for going off topic but indifferent attitudes and defeatist views just jam the wrong buttons on me. They demonstrate the lack of investment too many have today. If you don't like the laws(firearm or otherwise), political leaders and their policies, then get involved. Pick a side and fight using the various means provided under our system. No one knows if a revolution or civil war will happen next week or 50 years from now, but until then stay involved in some way. If all one wants is lapdog comfort, there are plenty of other countries to coddle such individuals. But be prepared, they're actually not so cuddly.
 
Last edited:
Forget the hope I had for Californian gun owner transplants I had earlier; the good ones already left, well, all but fifty;
FIFTY activists show to protest the new laws

It's all right, though, a new bullet button's already been invented, so you guys have nothing to worry about.

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." --Sam Adams
 
With regards to post #56, above...

Although not exactly comparing apples to oranges, you allude to a mass exodus, and change will result. Good luck with that one!

For example, in Connecticut, Governor Malloy is very anti second amendment in a state that had a lot of firearms-related businesses relative to its population size. He doesn't care! Drive them out, raise taxes to compensate for lost revenue, drive even more folks out, and increase taxes yet again. Not exactly sustainable, but never changes for the better, either!
 
1) Black Codes
2) Civil Right Marches

1) Gay discrimination
2) Gay Rights marches

Yeah, all that matters is the majority's wishes :rolleyes:. And ya'll wonder why we don't want to bother wasting federal advocacy resources on you guys...

TCB
 
I more wonder why posters write copious amount of changing positions, contradictions, rhetorical questions, and unworkable fictional theories in derogatory tone.

I suppose its in effort to make themselves feel better in lieu of being able to provide something of substance or contributory to the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top