California VS The AR-15 - Page 2 - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 01-07-2017, 09:55 PM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob D. View Post
In a state that just legalized marijuana and prostitution by minors, hired Rahm Emanuel (Operation Fast and Furious) to defend the status quo, you have to ask?
Influenced by depraved Hollywood hypocrites and illegal aliens, a once great state has become corrupt beyond belief. The inmates are running the asylum.
Forget about ARs, Californians will be lucky to own muskets in the near future. A sickening state of affairs.
Point of fact, they hired Eric Holder, not Rahm Emanuel but you are correct it was Holder who did Operation Fast and Furious.

The biggest taxpayer waste is that CA already has a State AG whose job it is to file lawsuits over laws the State disagrees with, yet they are paying Holder $300K a year to keep on retainer. $300K is more then TWICE what the State AG is paid.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-07-2017, 11:34 PM
roaniecowpony roaniecowpony is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Socal
Age: 61
Posts: 1,649
This thread, like all such, has devolved into a generalization of all Californians, which alienates and divides us.
__________________
Life's too short to shoot an ugly gun.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-08-2017, 12:00 AM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by roaniecowpony View Post
This thread, like all such, has devolved into a generalization of all Californians, which alienates and divides us.
It is a typical, feel better about my State by trashing CA thread. As they ignore the changing demographics in their own backyard that are swinging or already swung their State blue.
Reply With Quote
 
  #29  
Old 01-08-2017, 12:26 AM
Pilot Pilot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostintheOzone View Post
I'm a proponent of states rights however and feel that if people in CA want to run their state like a communist country with all types of restrictions then they should be able to do that. They just shouldn't be able to do it with federal tax dollars, which is what they're doing.
I am a big proponent of state's rights also, however, the states, through the Constitution agreed to the Bill or Rights, and the Constitution in general. They signed off on it to become a state. Therefore, the 2A is not up to individual states as it is a NATURAL right protected by the Constitution. CA or any other state should not be able to illegally alter their citizen's natural rights protected by the 2A.
__________________
Pilot
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-08-2017, 01:34 AM
LW McVay's Avatar
LW McVay LW McVay is offline
Adminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 16,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc1244 View Post
This sort of childish, hyperbolic nonsense only reflects poorly on Second Amendment advocates and gun owners – it’s ridiculous, inane, and untrue; California doesn’t ‘hate’ America, the state is part of America and its residents American citizens.

Firearm regulatory measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court do not ‘defy’ the Second Amendment, ‘blatantly’ or otherwise.

In addition to being wrong, the thread premise also exhibits contempt for the notion of “states’ rights” – California’s firearm regulatory measures reflect the will of the people of the state, lawfully enacted by their elected representatives, consistent with the state’s constitution and governance policies.

Should a resident of the state of California believe his Second Amendment rights have been violated by the state, he’s at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

Although appropriate to debate the merits and efficacy of firearm regulatory measures, to claim such measures ‘defy’ the Second Amendment absent a ruling by the Supreme Court is ignorant and wrongheaded.
You are flat wrong on many levels. You say Californians are Americans, then turn around and say it's good and proper for the state to take away their unalienable rights as Americans. Troll much lefty?
__________________
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less." - Gen. Robert E. Lee
RLTW!
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-08-2017, 04:37 AM
dsf dsf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA - for now.
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. Y View Post
Got shut down on the AR sub for this but why is Commiefornia so determined to ban the AR-15 once called the HOLLYWOOD gun because Armalite was home there. Shouldn't they be protecting their history instead of denouncing it? The AR is 100% American, but a state that hates America and seems to want to return to Mexico. They should think twice for what they wish for, overpopulation and persistant poverty.

I am not up on their new 2017 draconian laws that blatently defy the second ammendment. Maybe someone can let us know in a synopsis the new laws. When did polititions who, not one of, ever got their hands dirty working nor know anything about engineering and physics tell gun makers how to make their guns work. This is like what Washington does on their pollution standards on cars, and telling farmers to make their cows stop farting. Until these same idiots understand a law abiding educated and trained armed populous is safer than a group of unprotected sheep.
Remember last year when all three Democratic Party candidates came out strong for gun control? And no one, not one prominent person in the Democratic Party and especially no "gun owning Democrats" opposed them? In a nutshell, that's why CA gun owners are in the fix they're in. Anti-gun Democrats run this state and unfortunately there are plenty of gun owning Democrats who keep voting for them. They do more b*tching along the lines of "I can't vote for a pro-gun Republican because they're not sufficiently pro-LGBT" than they do about their party. Want more?

First, CA gunowners consider themselves "too fr*cking smart" and too complicated, too sophisticated to be single issue voters. That's for animals, the Neanderthal types, right? You know, like civil rights activists, senior citizens, LGBT rights, illegal aliens - seems to have worked pretty darn well for them. But again, too many CA gun owners consider themselves too good for such a simple act.

Second, in CA alot of gunowners are truly OK with some gun control. Waiting period - OK. Background - OK. Testing .... well, as long as it doesn't cost too much. Really sweetheart, we'll just put it in a little - cause you're OK with that ....

And again,the good old "gun owning Democrat" who pisses and moans about how "the Republicans are so mean - they won't let Susie use Bobby's bathroom" and then votes Democrat. As a group they won't lift a finger against their party, won't tell them to change, that would be too much work. Easier to complain about the Republicans, because no one fails at complaining.

AFTER the CA legislature passed a 30 round magazine ban, requiring them to be turned in or destroyed, the voters of CA passed the same ban by referendum vote. It passed 8M to 5M. With about 9M gunowners in CA we couldn't even get slightly more than half to show up at the polls and vote against a mag ban, ammo license scheme and ammo through the mail ban - or they showed up and voted for the ban, hard to tell which.

I'm in CA. And make no mistake, in case I seem too harsh, there are alot of dedicated, pro-gun as hell gunowners in this state. But we're outnumbered by the "weak sister" types. Post on a CA gun site "we should be single issue" voters and the above excuses just roll out. So, sorry guys - reality check, you done it to yourselves.

BTW, you're mistaken about how the folks who run it want to turn CA over to Mexico - they want to screw up the state so badly not even Mexico will want it.

Regarding the law itself, there are and will be ways to keep our AR 15s and other rifles. One thing we've become creative at hell at are legal workarounds. I guarantee there will be more than one "fixed mag" bottom or side feed type set ups for us to use.

Last edited by dsf; 01-08-2017 at 05:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-08-2017, 05:08 AM
dsf dsf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA - for now.
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc1244 View Post

Firearm regulatory measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court do not ‘defy’ the Second Amendment, ‘blatantly’ or otherwise.

In addition to being wrong, the thread premise also exhibits contempt for the notion of “states’ rights” – California’s firearm regulatory measures reflect the will of the people of the state, lawfully enacted by their elected representatives, consistent with the state’s constitution and governance policies.

Should a resident of the state of California believe his Second Amendment rights have been violated by the state, he’s at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

Although appropriate to debate the merits and efficacy of firearm regulatory measures, to claim such measures ‘defy’ the Second Amendment absent a ruling by the Supreme Court is ignorant and wrongheaded.
We'll see how the several court cases being pursued by CA gun rights organizations turn out. We've had some wins and some setbacks. I see nothing wrong with anyone offering an opinion that a ban on AR 15s may violate Heller's "in common use" findings.

Regarding states rights and the will of the voters, neither is a viable defense to an unconstitutional law. Prop 187 and Prop 8, each passed by CA voters, were later ruled unconstitutional and invalidated. I presume you accept that states rights assertions can not prevail if they are held to be in violation of the US Constitution.

Last edited by dsf; 01-08-2017 at 05:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-08-2017, 05:43 AM
dsf dsf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA - for now.
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by LW McVay View Post
You are flat wrong on many levels. You say Californians are Americans, then turn around and say it's good and proper for the state to take away their unalienable rights as Americans. Troll much lefty?
Our friend takes the position that rights have not been violated until SCOTUS says so. But of course what compels SCOTUS to take up and make such a decision is that rights were, in fact, violated. Justice Thomas said as much.

Gun rights in today's post Heller decision court system occupy similar standing as did civil rights law and court cases shortly after Brown. I wonder, were there similar apologists who asserted "no violation" until follow up cases put rest to the many legal dodges popular at the time? The anti-gunners of today have much in common with the segregationists of yesteryear.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-08-2017, 07:40 AM
LW McVay's Avatar
LW McVay LW McVay is offline
Adminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 16,024
The anti-gunners of today are simply mentally diseased.
__________________
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less." - Gen. Robert E. Lee
RLTW!
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-08-2017, 08:02 AM
Bob Womack Bob Womack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Between Clever and Stupid
Posts: 136
HERE is an interesting and applicable article, one man's opinion on why Democrats and Republicans can't agree on the 2nd Amendment. The bottom line? He observes that Democrats tend to use guns to kill each other and Republicans tend to use guns to protect themselves from Democrats. Democrats look at a gun and think what they might do to another person with it if they get angry enough. Republicans look at having their guns taken away and are concerned about being defenseless and surrounded by bad guys.

That's a fundamental difference in mindset: Democrats don't trust themselves to possess a gun because of the feelings inside them and therefore don't trust anyone else to. Republicans do trust themselves and their motives and are willing to extend that trust to others.

Think on.

Bob
__________________
"It is said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes.' "
Frodo Baggins to Gildor Inglorion, The Fellowship of the Ring
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-08-2017, 08:19 AM
mseric mseric is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormraper View Post
states rights only go so far. they can't ignore federally protected RIGHTS. Which the 2nd amendment is. ANY restriction on guns by the states is in fact in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. so basically, pretty much any states restrictions on guns is federally illegal, they're just refusing to recognize and prosecute or enforce them
Not true.

It's well settled law that under certain circumstance and to some extent a constitutionally protected right may be regulated.
What those circumstance might be and the nature and extent of permissible regulation will be worked out by the courts.
To do so, a court will consider, among other things, the nature of the right, the nature of the regulation, and the governmental purpose intended to be served.

For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment.
While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion against laws that abridge those rights we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion.
A few examples are:

Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech.
Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.

If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies.
If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true.
These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regularly enforced.

Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges.

Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours.
Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety.
Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official.

Then we can look at .

Hill v Colorado

Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica


So in fact the reality is that rights protected by the Constitution may nonetheless be subject to some limited regulation.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-08-2017, 08:49 AM
drail drail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,935
Only if you believe that the Supreme Court has authority to "interpret" the Bill of Rights - and the Constitution never gave them that authority. Congress gave it to them in 1869 and no one noticed. Just like Congress gave the President authority to deploy troops into a foreign country that had never attacked the U.S. Congress did not have the authority to do that either. I will never understand why the term "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand....I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers meant "shall not be infringed" by ANYONE for ANY reason.

Last edited by drail; 01-08-2017 at 08:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-08-2017, 09:01 AM
mseric mseric is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by drail View Post
Only if you believe that the Supreme Court has authority to "interpret" the Bill of Rights - and the Constitution never gave them that authority. Congress gave it to them in 1869 and no one noticed. Just like Congress gave the President authority to deploy troops into a foreign country that had never attacked the U.S. Congress did not have the authority to do that either. I will never understand why the term "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand....I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers meant "shall not be infringed" by ANYONE for ANY reason.
Many of the Founding Fathers were Lawyers.

They set up the three tear system for a reason. Legislative, Executive and the Judicial. Believe it or not these "Lawyer" put the final decisions on what is Constitutional and what is not in the hands of Lawyers.

...and the SC does not interpret the Constitution, they interpret existing Legislation to determine if this "challenged" legislation is Constitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-08-2017, 09:33 AM
LW McVay's Avatar
LW McVay LW McVay is offline
Adminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 16,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack View Post
HERE is an interesting and applicable article, one man's opinion on why Democrats and Republicans can't agree on the 2nd Amendment. The bottom line? He observes that Democrats tend to use guns to kill each other and Republicans tend to use guns to protect themselves from Democrats. Democrats look at a gun and think what they might do to another person with it if they get angry enough. Republicans look at having their guns taken away and are concerned about being defenseless and surrounded by bad guys.

That's a fundamental difference in mindset: Democrats don't trust themselves to possess a gun because of the feelings inside them and therefore don't trust anyone else to. Republicans do trust themselves and their motives and are willing to extend that trust to others.

Think on.

Bob
Solid. Like I said, they have a mental disease/disorder.
__________________
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less." - Gen. Robert E. Lee
RLTW!
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-08-2017, 09:41 AM
Hawk 3/21 Hawk 3/21 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Stuart, Florida
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
Many of the Founding Fathers were Lawyers.

They set up the three tear system for a reason. Legislative, Executive and the Judicial. Believe it or not these "Lawyer" put the final decisions on what is Constitutional and what is not in the hands of Lawyers.

...and the SC does not interpret the Constitution, they interpret existing Legislation to determine if this "challenged" legislation is Constitutional.
True, bit using today's filter it's easy to forget that the executive had virtually none of the powers back then that we associate with it today. The role of the courts was nothing like what we see today. Adams, only the second president, already struggled with the fall of the founding fathers will. With Hamilton and Jefferson struggling for power behind the scenes, not only were parties being created but Jefferson was already attempting to change the balance of power. The founding fathers gave the states all the power and the federal govt a very small role. Men like Jefferson saw power and wanted it, the saw money...Other people's money and wanted lordship over it. So they championed movements to add power to the feds, first a standing army of 10,000. Yet many founding fathers weren't fooled and fought tooth and nail to keep the structure as it was conceived. What we today accept as normal would've made even the extremist among them puke.

I'm can't remember the history of the courts as well, but any time you have individual nation states joining under the agreement that they will retain autonomy on most issues and will only defer to the new joint govt on treatise/interstate laws and somewhat on defense. I can see the role of the SCOTUS falling way behind the power of each stated supreme Court. As the issues the federal government was supposed to rule over were so limited
__________________
Allow government to make no law to which they exempt themselves
Only by popular vote
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-08-2017, 09:50 AM
jamiesaun jamiesaun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boise
Age: 31
Posts: 4,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsf View Post
Remember last year when all three Democratic Party candidates came out strong for gun control? And no one, not one prominent person in the Democratic Party and especially no "gun owning Democrats" opposed them? In a nutshell, that's why CA gun owners are in the fix they're in. Anti-gun Democrats run this state and unfortunately there are plenty of gun owning Democrats who keep voting for them. They do more b*tching along the lines of "I can't vote for a pro-gun Republican because they're not sufficiently pro-LGBT" than they do about their party. Want more?

First, CA gunowners consider themselves "too fr*cking smart" and too complicated, too sophisticated to be single issue voters. That's for animals, the Neanderthal types, right? You know, like civil rights activists, senior citizens, LGBT rights, illegal aliens - seems to have worked pretty darn well for them. But again, too many CA gun owners consider themselves too good for such a simple act.

Second, in CA alot of gunowners are truly OK with some gun control. Waiting period - OK. Background - OK. Testing .... well, as long as it doesn't cost too much. Really sweetheart, we'll just put it in a little - cause you're OK with that ....

And again,the good old "gun owning Democrat" who pisses and moans about how "the Republicans are so mean - they won't let Susie use Bobby's bathroom" and then votes Democrat. As a group they won't lift a finger against their party, won't tell them to change, that would be too much work. Easier to complain about the Republicans, because no one fails at complaining.

AFTER the CA legislature passed a 30 round magazine ban, requiring them to be turned in or destroyed, the voters of CA passed the same ban by referendum vote. It passed 8M to 5M. With about 9M gunowners in CA we couldn't even get slightly more than half to show up at the polls and vote against a mag ban, ammo license scheme and ammo through the mail ban - or they showed up and voted for the ban, hard to tell which.

I'm in CA. And make no mistake, in case I seem too harsh, there are alot of dedicated, pro-gun as hell gunowners in this state. But we're outnumbered by the "weak sister" types. Post on a CA gun site "we should be single issue" voters and the above excuses just roll out. So, sorry guys - reality check, you done it to yourselves.

BTW, you're mistaken about how the folks who run it want to turn CA over to Mexico - they want to screw up the state so badly not even Mexico will want it.

Regarding the law itself, there are and will be ways to keep our AR 15s and other rifles. One thing we've become creative at hell at are legal workarounds. I guarantee there will be more than one "fixed mag" bottom or side feed type set ups for us to use.
I always new I liked you.

Great post.
__________________
Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-08-2017, 10:19 AM
newbutold newbutold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 86
Pot/Crack smoking politicians are running our state into the ground. LA and San Francisco libs are in control.
Rural California is mostly Republican and carry permits are common. The deal with Holder is regarded as stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-08-2017, 11:09 AM
LostintheOzone LostintheOzone is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 49th parallel
Posts: 4,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot View Post
I am a big proponent of state's rights also, however, the states, through the Constitution agreed to the Bill or Rights, and the Constitution in general. They signed off on it to become a state. Therefore, the 2A is not up to individual states as it is a NATURAL right protected by the Constitution. CA or any other state should not be able to illegally alter their citizen's natural rights protected by the 2A.
So the states signed on to the BOR and all the laws of the federal Gov't. My state signed on in 1889. WA ratified it's own constitution and continues to make it's own laws as the 10th amendment allows it to do.

Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So the people get to make some laws. The courts are there to decide how those laws should be interpreted and how they affect individuals.

Just saying you have a right to own an AR may not be enough. The court may have to decide if you have an individual right to do that or the state has a right to say you don't.

Personally, I feel that the ATF (federal agency) would like to add the AR to the title II weapons list. They can't do that unless congress changes the law. Even if they did the fed doesn't have the resources to enforce it. From an enforcement standpoint the next best thing is to let the states take care of it.

Does anyone honestly believe any federal court is going to take away a states right to regulate firearms. Not likely. This is the federal gov't we're talking about here. The very people that want to regulate everything that we come into contact with. The federal judiciary system is part of the federal gov't.

Right or wrong, one's rights come from the people and the courts now. Half of the states have some sort of referendum or initiative process.
__________________
When asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”

Last edited by LostintheOzone; 01-08-2017 at 11:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-08-2017, 02:01 PM
LostintheOzone LostintheOzone is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 49th parallel
Posts: 4,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_In_29 View Post
Point of fact, they hired Eric Holder, not Rahm Emanuel but you are correct it was Holder who did Operation Fast and Furious.

The biggest taxpayer waste is that CA already has a State AG whose job it is to file lawsuits over laws the State disagrees with, yet they are paying Holder $300K a year to keep on retainer. $300K is more then TWICE what the State AG is paid.
CA hired Eric Holder for one reason.

Quote:
"Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."
—Attorney General Eric Holder



Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/home-feat...#ixzz4VCb5yTtD
__________________
When asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-08-2017, 05:59 PM
dsf dsf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA - for now.
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesaun View Post
I always new I liked you.

Great post.
Thank you - I was wondering if being PO'd about the new laws and having the flu got the better of me.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-08-2017, 06:27 PM
BoulderTroll BoulderTroll is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Central CA
Posts: 2,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_In_29 View Post
It is a typical, feel better about my State by trashing CA thread. As they ignore the changing demographics in their own backyard that are swinging or already swung their State blue.
For once, Steve and I are in agreement. When you read posts #1 and #5, it is clear that the OP is feigning ignorance, as if he can't be bothered to learn about gun laws in CA, when he clearly has already done reading on it. It's a troll thread.

Of course CA gun laws are stupid and draconian, OP. But thanks all the same for lumping all CA gun owners in a bunch with the rest of the residents. My guess is that sheer numbers alone would tell a very different story. The gun owners of CA probably outnumber those of most other states combined. Threads like this serve no purpose other than alienation.
__________________
I am one with the Force, and the Force is with me.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-08-2017, 06:28 PM
dsf dsf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA - for now.
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
Many of the Founding Fathers were Lawyers.

They set up the three tear system for a reason. Legislative, Executive and the Judicial. Believe it or not these "Lawyer" put the final decisions on what is Constitutional and what is not in the hands of Lawyers.

...and the SC does not interpret the Constitution, they interpret existing Legislation to determine if this "challenged" legislation is Constitutional.
True, fine points often missed when we decide what we like or dislike. I think it is worthwhile to note the Bill of Rights was drafted to be applied against the federal government and not state governments; that there is a preamble to the BoR which reads in part:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

That the states met to clarify "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" meant to apply those against the federal government is clear. We of course have since had the 14th Amendment and with it a new type of citizen, that of a citizen of the United States, and the theory of incorporation. And for better or worse, McCulloch v Maryland in 1819 and other cases deciding in favor of federal supremacy.

I think Justice Thomas said it best, unfortunately, discussing SCOTUS's current attitude toward the 2nd Amendment and enforcing Heller's writ - “The Second Amendment -- we want to pretend doesn’t exist"
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-08-2017, 06:41 PM
dsf dsf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA - for now.
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoulderTroll View Post
For once, Steve and I are in agreement. When you read posts #1 and #5, it is clear that the OP is feigning ignorance, as if he can't be bothered to learn about gun laws in CA, when he clearly has already done reading on it. It's a troll thread.

Of course CA gun laws are stupid and draconian, OP. But thanks all the same for lumping all CA gun owners in a bunch with the rest of the residents. My guess is that sheer numbers alone would tell a very different story. The gun owners of CA probably outnumber those of most other states combined. Threads like this serve no purpose other than alienation.
Opening post motives aside, if there are so many of "us" why are we in such terrible shape? I won't bet my life on this, but seem to recall that CT and KY have about the same statewide percentage of gunowners. What accounts for the dramatic difference in gun laws in each state, might there be applications useful to CA?

I will always qualify my CA statements by saying there are alot of solid gunowners in state. Why then do we have a Democratic Party legislative super-majority? Why are there no pro-gun statewide elected officials? Why does Governor Brown feel sufficiently safe to screw us? When given the opportunity to throw us a bone on the departing AG Harris's slot he instead appoints a virulently anti-gun replacement?

The question (poorly) raised in post #5 is legitimate and a longstanding topic on CA gun forums - the screwing over of CA gun owners by the big city chiefs who support gun control, so long as their folks get an exemption. The LA +10 magazine ban is an excellent example of this tactic.

We can take a swing at the ham handed post wordings or we can look at the issues raised and just maybe figure out how to address.

Last edited by dsf; 01-08-2017 at 06:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-08-2017, 07:42 PM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostintheOzone View Post
CA hired Eric Holder for one reason.

—Attorney General Eric Holder
Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/home-feat...#ixzz4VCb5yTtD
I am well aware of Holder's stand on guns and my comment had more to do with CA being broke yet still able to lay out a $300K retainer that duplicates the function of the AG the taxpayers are already paying the salary of. An AG that is every bit as anti-gun as Holder.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-08-2017, 07:47 PM
BoulderTroll BoulderTroll is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Central CA
Posts: 2,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsf View Post
Opening post motives aside, if there are so many of "us" why are we in such terrible shape? I won't bet my life on this, but seem to recall that CT and KY have about the same statewide percentage of gunowners. What accounts for the dramatic difference in gun laws in each state, might there be applications useful to CA?

I will always qualify my CA statements by saying there are alot of solid gunowners in state. Why then do we have a Democratic Party legislative super-majority? Why are there no pro-gun statewide elected officials? Why does Governor Brown feel sufficiently safe to screw us? When given the opportunity to throw us a bone on the departing AG Harris's slot he instead appoints a virulently anti-gun replacement?

The question (poorly) raised in post #5 is legitimate and a longstanding topic on CA gun forums - the screwing over of CA gun owners by the big city chiefs who support gun control, so long as their folks get an exemption. The LA +10 magazine ban is an excellent example of this tactic.

We can take a swing at the ham handed post wordings or we can look at the issues raised and just maybe figure out how to address.
I'm not in agreement with you that it's a big mystery...it's a question of sheer numbers. The number of voting liberals vs voting conservatives tells the whole story.

Big city chiefs are politicians just like big county sheriffs. Their anti-gun stance should come as no surprise, and also should not be taken as the view of their rank and file employees.
__________________
I am one with the Force, and the Force is with me.

Last edited by BoulderTroll; 01-08-2017 at 07:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved