Selling guns in California

[kermit315]

Consider this: What if it was you? What if your state was the one being singled out, and you couldnt get something plainly legal sent in because somebody made an arbitrary political statement of 'you got the government you deserved'. How would you handle it.

So, you say vote, vote, vote and you can fix it. The problem is that Californians do vote, vote, vote, and gun owner/enthusiasts are outnumbered. What is your solution for that, other than advocating leaving, leaving gun owners numbers even lower. California DOJ is corrupt to the highest level, spreading backdoor regulations throughout the state, trying to cause us to not buy anything. They have been called on this before and been slapped down for it. Between corrupt politicians in gerrymandered districts, and a corrupt DOJ that is working against us, and other gun owners/dealers/sellers outside California working against us, we are set up for failure.

The majority in California will never turn on Sacremento, because gun owners are in the minority here. That is what people dont understand. Every gun owner in the state could vote for something, but it wouldnt be enough votes to be a majority, and as long as that happens we have an uphill battle in the legislature alone.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I always find irony in people who bash California and NY. Many Southerners sanctimoniously trumpet how much better their gun laws are, when if you look back as little as 10 years in some cases, NY and California had similar if not better laws than most southern states. For instance, NY and CA had CCW before most of the southern states (NY began offering CCW in 1936). In NY and I believe CA as well, you can carry your CCW in more places than in many southern states. It's only in the past 10-15 years that stupid restrictions began being placed on weapon ownership in NY and CA.

Not everyone votes on one solitary issue (ie, guns). For instance, there is nothing that precludes one from wanting universal healthcare and CCW at the same time (I don't but there's nothing that says you can't have both, at least in theory). For some people, the issues of healthcare and the economy outweigh that of guns. For others, it's gay marriage. I don't think half the people who vote for anti-gun politicians agree with their anti-gun stances. Heck, I don't even think most people know where their politicians stand on guns. I think they know where they stand on things like the war in Iraq though, which many people oppose. Again though, you can oppose the war in Iraq and still support gun ownership. But for some, ending the Iraq War may outweigh their desire to legalize machineguns, so they vote Democrat. That's why you have people voting like they do in CA and NY.

And the whole, "move out of state" argument is garbage, because many people can't afford the move, can't afford to leave their families, and perhaps can't find a job suited to their needs in a pro-gun state. You can't run away from all your problems. You can't blame everything on "city folk" either, because like it or not, the numbers of "city folk" will grow, whereas the number of farm boys will shrink.

Moving out of state is like retreating in battle. You can only retreat so far. It makes more sense to "take the fight to Berlin"... or San Francisco, NYC, or LA. Let's be honest, if you're all hunkered down in Idaho, do you think many Americans will care if there's a federal ban on weapons and the only people who complain are Idahoans? I mean seriously, how many people really cares what happens in Idaho? Now if a whole bunch of Californians complain, there's going to be some media attention. Case in point... if Idaho banned gay marriage, most proponents of gay marriage would roll their eyes and go, "oh well, that's Idaho." When it happened in California, people started soiling themselves.

My point is, you cannot ignore California and NY. You're also not "punishing" California by not selling to civilians. All you're doing is making the California politicians say, "good, we don't want those folks from Idaho selling guns here anyway." And there you have it. No more guns in California, the antis win.

 

[Superlite27]

you are on the side of the gun grabbers that California residents dont need those awful guns.

No. YOU are on the side of the gun-grabbers by believing gun manufacturers should bow and kowtow to the whims of anti-gun legislators in order for you to continue your past-time. Meanwhile, these laws continue to get tighter, a little tighter, a little tighter..........next thing you know you can't breathe.

I just want to snap the noose. Maybe then you'll realize you're being strangled.

Cut yourself loose.

I intended this thread to rationally discuss this slow process of choking gun owners and possibly trying to find out an effective method to combat these moronic anti-gun requirements. I thought we, as gun owners, might possibly think of a strategy to change these things. The first thing we need to do is come up with a consensus. This issue is more polarizing than I originally thought. How can we possibly fight the anti-gunners if we're bickering amongst ourselves? We're all on the same side. Let's start thinking of things to fix the problem we all face.

Unfortunately, my belief is some strong medicine. Like cauterizing an open wound, this is gonna hurt. Evidently, sacrifice is out of the question for those of you in restrictive states.

Basicly, no more guns in California, the anti's win. Completely absurd restrictions, the anti's win. What's the way around this obstacle?

 

[kermit315]

the way I see it, everybody is for "sacrifice" as long as they are the ones that dont have to give up anything.

Basicly, no more guns in California, the anti's win. Completely absurd restrictions, the anti's win. What's the way around this obstacle?

well, cutting off the supply isnt the answer.

if anybody here has a good idea, lay it out, because there is no easy answer for this.

 

[Prince Yamato]

the way I see it, everybody is for "sacrifice" as long as they are the ones that dont have to give up anything.

I feel the same way. "Moving" isn't as simple as people think. I've done quite a bit of moving, mainly when the economy was better. Moving the belongings from my apartment in New Mexico to my apartment in Texas cost ~$4500 and the movers only filled 1/4 of the truck. That was 3 years ago and I got a discount because I used the movers before. Moving an entire household is probably 4-5 times that in cost. Couple that with purchasing another house... saying, "move" doesn't really make much sense. Spending $20,000 or more relocating and another couple hundred thousand on a house isn't really an economically sound decision if the primary motivation is to buy a $1600 rifle to shoot at the range.

 

[kermit315]

I am getting ready to move this summer. I have most costs covered by the Navy, and I am still looking at 2000 in incidentals associated with the move that will come out of my pocket. So, I can definately see how anybody paying for a whole move out of their pocket, on top of trying to find a new job and new place to live wouldnt be able to do it.

that being said, I dont think anybody should have to cut and run just to get the same rights that everyone else has. I am all for fighting, but it has to be done smartly, and it is. But it is also something that wont happen overnight, and will be 10 times more troublesome if we have to fight CAL DOJ and other gun owners/sellers/dealers at the same time just to get something legal into the state. Divide and conquer, the perfect battle plan. The brady bunch couldnt have planned it better.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I'm sorry but as a frequent Gunbroker seller with the latest CA DOJ regulations me and my dealer came to the conclusion that we can sell all our guns easily enough by relying on the other 49 remaining states. It simply isn't worth the hassle for us. Our take on the matter is if California doesn't want to act like they're part of the Union then by god we won't bother to treat them as though they are.

 

[kermit315]

and what regulations were those that keep you from selling to California? the two minute FFL check?

 

[R.W.Dale]

and what regulations were those that keep you from selling to California? the two minute FFL check?

Deal with it

something called NOP applies

Not
Our
Problem

You Californians always seem to get the greatest shock when something arises to point out that the rest of the country DOESN'T revolve around you. As I previously mentioned there are still 49 other states.

 

[kermit315]

yep, thats class right there....



well, its something anyway.

You are a prime example of the problems this country faces.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Consider this: What if it was you? What if your state was the one being singled out, and you couldnt get something plainly legal sent in because somebody made an arbitrary political statement of 'you got the government you deserved'. How would you handle it.

Well for one I wouldn't start by blaming the rest of the country expecting them to modify their method of doing business to suit the state in question.

I understand that people like yourself really have no representation on this matter whatsoever. But that still doesn't give you the excuse to blame anyone but your state goverment

 

[kermit315]

hmmm, 2 minute FFL check...I know, that is asking so much when somebody wins an auction that it probably took you longer to put up on gunbroker. Are you an FFL holder, because if you are not, you dont even have to do the check, you just ship to the California FFL, just like always.

Yep, thats sure a major modification to the way the fed government makes you ship a weapon anyway.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Princess: "And the whole, "move out of state" argument is garbage, because many people can't afford the move, can't afford to leave their families, and perhaps can't find a job suited to their needs in a pro-gun state."

I did. My job "wasn't suited to my needs" either, at least to hear it from a few of my erstwhile associates.

Some of us can't be bought, Princess.

Your argument is garbage.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I work in conjunction with an FFL holder handling all the internet sales all our outgoings are in the books PERIOD

If you want to criticize our method of conducting our affairs you're only hurting your own cause.

 

[kermit315]

well, according to you, it doesnt matter anyway, because it isnt your problem. with your attitude, you better hope it never is your problem, because your solution is to cut off the supply of legal arms into your state. that will sure show those anti gunners.

 

[kermit315]

who is being bought duke? it was said that many cant afford to up and move based on crappy gun laws. you did, more power to you, but ask yourself this.....did you stand up for a principle, or cut and run to some place more convenient.

what have you done for the second amendment lately?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

For the Second Amendment, I've defended indigent criminal defendants facing gun charges with a risk of jail, and won dismissals and acquittals.

You?

 

[kermit315]

no, thats not for the second amendment,that is what you do for your clients. just because you use the second amendment, doesnt mean you are protecting it.

so, who is being bought again?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

froggy: "no, thats not for the second amendment,that is what you do for your clients. just because you use the second amendment, doesnt mean you are protecting it."

Oh, that's hilarious. Because I do it for pay, it doesn't count.

Right.

Again, what do YOU do day to day for the Second Amendment, Scooter?

 

[kermit315]

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I didnt ask how you use the 2nd amendment, I asked what you DO for it, so what is that? And you never answered my question about whom is being bought.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I answered it. I defend people accused of gun crimes.

You didn't answer my counter-question. What do YOU do for the Second Amendment on a daily basis, kiddo?

I'm guessing a big goose egg on this one.

 

[kermit315]

no, you didnt answer it, you dodged it.

How have you done anything FOR the 2nd amendment? I dont care how you USE the 2nd amendment to get your clients off.

I joined the Military, and take my oath very seriously. I am an active member of the NRA, and do alot of UOC campaigning in my area.

Along with other residents of California, we have gotten AR15's and AK clones back into the hands of Californians across the state, are working to nullify the handgun safety list, and are working on LOC with shall issue CCW right behind that. I will probably be out of California before that happens, but I wont stop helping them achieve their goals, because they should be common goals of all gun owners.

 

[persing]

I vote pro gun here, but there are so many illegal aliens here in CA who get home loans from freddie and fanny. They vote anti gun as well as all the Big City Idiots.
I will keep mine, and watch, if you think you live in a safe state, you have drastically fooled your intelligence. We have a gone back in time, to the beginning, ammo goes first.

Kirk
The unfortunate biggoted state and I cant blame you.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Froggy, it sounds like you're merely USING the Second Amendment to satisfy your own vanity.

Shame on you.

Meanwhile, guys like me heroically free people accused of gun crimes. Sometimes (though far from always) pro bono. But you see us as "using" the Second Amendment.

Bwah hah ha.

 

[kermit315]

whatever you have to tell yourself at night, thats your problem.

so, who is being bought again? those people that cant afford to move?