NRA- SanFranGunBan... Vote NO!!!

[Basura Blanca]

You got all the lefties voting, because they crazy left wing Democrats, they want their leftie laws passed.

I'm not trying to single anyone out here, but even Californians themselves fall into the fallacy-laden mindset that makes them believe that "liberal leftists" = the embodiment of CA's RKBA problems.
In particular, as it pertains to the passage of firearms laws, this type of knee-jerk, reactionary, pseudo-thought is swiftly undermined when one examines the facts. IOW, it's not just the "lefty Democrats" that are to blame.


Don't believe it? Look for yourself and put it to the test.

Use the drop down list titled "Choose a Session" here to generate a list of previous state senate and assembly members and their respective party affiliation. Then, use this link here to research the votes on specific pieces of legislation (ex.: SB23 of the 1999-2000 session or more recently AB50 of the '03-'04 session).

Here's a recent example:

SB48 (signed by a Republican Governor too) was an NRA "red" bill, meaning it was one to oppose.

***
Here's how the final votes went (I've selected the "anomalies" here. This isn't the entire roll call):

Senate.
Denise Ducheny-D (no)
Dean Florez-D (no)

State Assy.
John Benoit-R (aye)
Lynn Daucher-R (aye)
Bonnie Garcia-R (aye)
Shirley Horton-R (aye)
Roger Niello-R (aye)
Keith Richman-R (aye)
Todd Spitzer-R (aye)
Van Tran-R (aye)

Gloria Negrete McLeod-D (no)
Nicole Parra-D (no)
***

Let's see... of the members voting, eight Republicans in the state assembly voted for an anti-gun measure while two Democrats voted against it.
In the state senate, two Democrats voted against it too.


Is everything so black & white? No, not in the least. California politics (heck, politics in general) are not so simple and issues aren't drawn on an definitive partisan line. That's the reality that many fail to grasp.

 

[Amusetec]

Basura Blanca-
Just becuse someone has an R after there names does not mean the are conservitives that is what we call a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
That is part of the problem people think that you have a D after your name you are a lib or lefty and if you have an R after your name you are conservitave. Well that is not true I would call Zell Miller(D) a liberal.

We here in Texas have Lots of RINOs.

That is why I never vote Straight Ticket. I find out about who is running and try and find out where they stand.
Then I find out that they lied to and vote for the next liar. :banghead: :banghead:

 

[NHBB]

LOL @ zundfolge... you should submit that one yourself

 

[Basura Blanca]

Basura Blanca-
Just becuse someone has an R after there names does not mean the are conservitives that is what we call a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
That is part of the problem people think that you have a D after your name you are a lib or lefty and if you have an R after your name you are conservitave.

Well, I agree but I'll go one step further and say that "conservative" (even in the classical sense) does not equal "pro gun", just as "republican" does not equal "conservative". The converse holds true too (i.e. the oft overused "liberal leftist" stuff).
None of that is exactly earth-shattering news though.

The point I was trying to make was that in spite of the sentiments of some California residents, the idea that the state suffers where the RKBA is at question is not simply because of it's so-called "blue" status.
Politics aren't that simple.

The faulty thinking of many "gun nuts" here in the Golden State is that if they can turn this state more "red", they will start to win the RKBA battle and even better, begin to undo the damage that's been done. Looking at the history of the state's lawmaking on that matter, with special attention to party affiliation (as in my example above), I disagree completely.

The reality is that the "gun issue" (whatever that really means) is a bastard subject that few elected officials wish to take on in any sort of a proactive sense. If anything, it's an issue that does not know partisan lines either direction. Granted, it may be more magnified in a place like California, but it's the same general story in Texas, or Virginia or Utah or wherever.

As voters, gun owners are a marginalized class of people in the mind of the elected.

 

[thorn726]

really nifty tricks

written into the law= they know even if it passes, the handgun part will fail, but the "sales in city" part will be upheld, stopping privat parties form selling guns to each other legally, ammo, etc, i dont know is SF even has any gun stores anymore anyway?

as for the rest of the country- yeah, sure ignore us. not like anyone from Cali ever becomes president, his aide/ whatever gets shot, and the whole nation is affected. there are no people form Cali in the US congress, dont worry about it.

and yeah, Berkeley and Sf hardly represent CA as a whole on guns.
and even here there are lots of us "crazies", more than you think.

 

[LAR-15]

I will say it again: the radical gun banners control California and push there crap at will.

Name another state that would take Paul Koretz seriously?

Yes he is from Hollyweird but CA takes that man's gun control proposals and passes them- at least eventually (can we say 50 caliber rifles?)

Heck CA was going to pass his handgun serialization bill until the cops finally bitched loud enough that it would cost them too much money.

 

[JJE]

I lived in SF for 15 years until just recently and I expect that it will become less politically extreme. Why? Real estate prices have skyrocketed and the traditional voter base that has supported crackpot politicians in the past is being priced out of town. The people that can afford to live in SF (lawyers, finance execs, high-tech execs) are much less likely to support traditional SF politics than the people who used to live there.

How will the vote go? It would not surprise me if it passed, although it will be challenged in court on a number of issues (conflict with state law, seizure of private property without compensation). SF has a long history of losing in court, so ultimately I would be surprised if it goes into effect.

 

[Basura Blanca]

I will say it again: the radical gun banners control California and push there crap at will.

Well then, I'll say it again too: if you aren't including the "radical gun banner" Republicans, then you are acting disingenuously.

Name another state that would take Paul Koretz seriously?

...a totally straw argument.

Yes he is from Hollyweird but CA takes that man's gun control proposals and passes them- at least eventually (can we say 50 caliber rifles?)

It appears you didn't do the homework that I assigned above. Go look at party affiliation of those voting for and against AB50.
-and oh yeah... can we say, "signed by a so-called progun Republican governor" too???

Heck CA was going to pass his handgun serialization bill until the cops finally bitched loud enough that it would cost them too much money.

Not quite the story, but good enough to leave alone.

 

[Justang]

Sorry but CA is a lost cause.

ignorant statement.

 

[bill2]

Some things to remember: One, don't confuse Republican with conservative. Too many people do and come to regret it. Two, not all Democrats are against guns and not all Republicans are for them. And remember, in the 2004 presidential election, the eastern half of CA went for Bush by about 15%. the problem is that the bay area and the LA area went for Kerry, and they are the main population centers. If you look at a county map of CA, most of it is red, very little of it is blue.

Like many other things, including the media in regards to gun owners, people tend to generalize - it's much easier than really finding out about an issue and two it's sometimes satisfying to make a general statement about something that really irrritates you (such as all Californian's are gun hating liberals or something similar).

CA is not a lost cause, but it will take a lot of work. Do your homework - don't vote straight tickets, but instead find out about everyone you're voting for/against.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Unlike NJ, CA is NOT a lost cause.

Libs have a stranglehold on the legislature, but it's propped up by things like union dues being directed into Dem coffers.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/75/

A couple of strategic cracks like that into the dike can turn the tide.

{Holy mangled metaphor, batman!}

 

[RavenVT100]

B) Exiling them to an island, for such blatant ingonorance of our rights.

Hey, I know a good island for that. Quite near to San Fran, in fact. Of course, we'd have to re-open it.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Unlike NJ, CA is NOT a lost cause.

Libs have a stranglehold on the legislature, but it's propped up by things like union dues being directed into Dem coffers.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/75/

A couple of strategic cracks like that into the dike can turn the tide.

{Holy mangled metaphor, batman!}

For all the "gun nut" talk that laments the passage of harassment laws regarding firearms, I'm actually amazed that folks wouldn't be able to spot a union-harassment law when they see one.
Debating the finer points of prop. 75 is totally off-topic on this thread, but for all intents and purposes, it is exactly as I describe -that is, it's an issue of harassment aimed at a segment of the population.
...something about two wrongs not making a right comes to mind here.

That said, I don't support prop. 75 in any way. Further, I don't see how it's passage would ever help RKBA in the Golden State. As was pointed out before, being a Republican doesn't make one an automatic supporter of the RKBA, and conversely Democrats don't blindly "hate guns", etc., etc.
Thus, it follows that being a union member does not automatically make that individual a "liberal, left, gun-hating" segment of society either. Nor does the dubious claim that their universal support for Democratic candidates mean that they are the enemy of ours because of the mythical trickle down effect that is asserted.
As for union dues bolstering the coffers of the Dems., so what? (see above) Besides that, look at the money raised by the current Republican governor who claimed to be immune from the "special interests". As of today, $64 million dollars of whoring later, I'd say Arnold is up to his ears in "special interest" money himself.

Back on topic:
If Californians want to defeat "gun bans" like that which is slated for San Francisco, it will take a tactful approach at swaying public opinion to do so.
The members of the "rabid, liberal left" can smell counterfeit rhetoric a mile away, just as we gun owners can see through the thinly veiled lies that are passed off as objective premises in support of "gun bans". Too often, imo, our side underestimates the intelligence of the opposition.
In regards to the RKBA, the pursuit of swaying public opinion our direction can't be won by rah rah, chest-thumping rants that cite the 2nd Amendment as the foundational argument. Even the fence-sitters on the issue don't often buy into that simple logic. IOW, it may be cut and dry to us, but it'll take more than that to convince those outside of our circled wagons.
JMO, of course.

 

[rick_reno]

Proposition H? In San Francisco?

My GOD where is Jay Leno when we need him?

Wait until they run Proposition KY.

Seriously - how is this one polling?

 

[LAR-15]

Sorry but Arnold never has been pro gun.

I was not surprised he signed it.

And secondly radical gun banners have the ears of BOTH parties in California.

You got a state that puts Don Perata in charge of the state senate.

How nice.

Politicians in CA (and NJ, ect) cannot run for statewide office on a pro gun policy and win.

When was the last 'pro gun' bill passed by the California Assembly?

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Sorry but Arnold never has been pro gun.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I believe he hasn't signed any anti-gun bills since. I think the negative reaction he got from AB50 was a wake-up call.

 

[MountainPeak]

Ain't that the truth, for those of us that live out here. It's easier to admit your a closet male lesbian than it is to admit your a gun owner.

But here is something that happened just an hour ago. I work in a top tier law firm in the Silicon Valley. One of the young hottie lawyers just was talking to her co-worker how she had fun this weekend skeet shooting. And last week another co-worker of mine was talking about how she was trying to choose between a Glock or HK USP. At the old firm I worked at the named partner had a hunting room that displayed over $500,000 worth of firearms. He was a big time Safari hunter.

Times are changing in Cali. We are even starting to see pro 2nd amendment articles written in the local newpapers.

Now if the damn politicians would get their heads out of their rectums and see the change.

I'd like to think all the damn stupid gun laws are finally starting to have an effect. People here don't like them and are starting to speak up. This state would be fantastic without all the damn tree huggers politics.

But I think with the population ageing and the 60s and 70s flower childs are finally getting off of the pot and slowly seeing the picture. Especially in light of seeing what happened in NO.

I worked on the demolition/debris removal after the Oakland Hills Fire. I wish I had actually counted how many firearms were recovered(worthless, but recovered) during this effort. 3000 homes were burned up. Hundreds of firearms were recovered. Most of course, were trucked off, buried in debris and never found. There are a LOT of gun owners in the "Bay" area. They may not be vocal, but I truly believe they exist in higher numbers than most people think.

 

[Kamicosmos]

A long-standing California preemption statute prohibits cities from passing a patchwork of conflicting gun laws. If Prop. H does pass, taxpayers will have to pay for a costly lawsuit that San Francisco may very well lose, as it has done in the past.

This is something I don't understand, and it happens everywhere. Here we have the State saying to the cities: you can't make laws that contradict XX. Then, the cities do it anyways. Kansas actually just passed a state level law mandating a simplification of gun transport laws at the county and city level. There is already buzzes about how certain counties and cities are going to re-pass thier own bizarre entrapment style gun laws to get around the new state law.

Just like a bunch of rebellious teenagers or something!! (gawd, I sound like my dad...)

 

[TGT]

The people in Brasil were able to be educated on the matter in the final moments of the debate, and ultimately vote "no" to a gun ban.

I'm not so sure the SanFrans as a whole have as much sense!

 

[gunsmith]

I just moved out of San Francisco

it might pass, I really don't know.
the good news is it will fail in court, absolutley because if SF is allowed to supercede State law the all the GUN FRIENDLY COUNTIES TO THE NORTH OF SAN FRANCISCO
Would be able to do the same and allow open carry, sales of guns not on the drop list, AR15 sales, hi cap mags, as many handguns you can buy not the one a month crap...tons of fun stuff could happen if SF passes this law and it sticks in court challenges.PLUS THIS OTHER FUN FACT!
The law (as written) doesn't make it illegal for CCW holders from other areas of CA to carry in SF! if you have a CA ccw and live elsewhere you're still ok to carry.
once the law passes and frico folks realize that ,then they will be quite upset, as they think it means no one is allowed to carry or own handguns...they don't realize it only affects them!!

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

To those that criticize my claim that SF is a lost cause, comparing it to a battle on the far front of our RKBA war...I say nonsense.


SF is a lost cause, because the people who live there are extremely anti-gun. You are battling against their will. No matter how wrong they are, you are facing off against the wishes and desires of a large majority of people. This is no easy task, and usually fails to work. At best, if you prevent them from banning guns, their sentiment will not change, and they will only harbor resentments and push again in the future when they achieve the necessary political power to get that ban. Until there is a MASSIVE cultural shift in the hearts and minds of the SF people, as well as a MASSIVE political shift -- don't bother.



Also, to say a SF ban is going to somehow affect me in Tampa Bay, Florida is pure nonsense - simply because WE will not vote for any garbage like that ever.


My advice to hard-core pro-RKBA folks there - MOVE. Please, come to a State like Florida where we are going in a positive, pro-RKBA direction. We can always use the votes to try and pass more "extreme" pro-RKBA laws that might be tight down the road. On some issues, this swing State could use a few good people to tip the scales. At least your vote will actually COUNT here, rather than be a symbol of dissent in SF. There's no glory in being a maryr in the war for RKBA rights - just look at the poor saps in England.

 

[Ironbarr]

Well,

how about the reverse? Suppose we had a few thousand folks who could move at a momenets notice to places like SF - folks who'd vote NO to everything anti-gun and YES to everything pro-gun.

Might get to be a habit and maybe other states can get "converted". Or reconverted (according how you see it).

A real (and valuable) task for the "motor voter" world, huh?