GhostRider-Nine
member
As long as the anti's can keep firearm owners thinking like that, they have won. BTW, I in no way mean this as a flame, it is just an observation of a way of thinking.
CA SB1140 and SB 1152 VETOED!!!
- Thread starter Ewok
- Start date
- Status
As long as the anti's can keep firearm owners thinking like that, they have won. BTW, I in no way mean this as a flame, it is just an observation of a way of thinking.
RealGun
Member
To what case are you referring? I would like to review it.
The Supreme Court has turned away cases on technicalities, but they can be beaten at that game, if their excuses (or rules) are anticipated. A direct confrontation, such as challenging the Brady Bill, had its successes, with part of the bill struck down.
redhead
Member
RealGun, I'm talking about Silveira v. Lockyer. I used to have a copy of the decision downloaded, but I've been through a couple of hard drives since them. The decision made it clear that the judges believed the 2nd amendment did not guarantee an individual right. I'll see if I can find it online.
FNFiveSeven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 538
I have a copy of it, I can email it to you if you like, but I don't know which address to send it to.
redhead
Member
redhead
Member
GhostRider-Nine
member
Does it make any difference in the long run if anti gun bills are passed one at a time, or three at a time? It doesn't to me. Arnold just lost ALL of my support.....for not only signing AB50, but for doing so after being informed that it was passed by an illegal ghost vote. But at least they didn't come after shotguns....YET.
RealGun
Member
Silveira v Lockyer reads like it begs to be further appealed. Was it? The way I read it, it IS the line in the sand. It makes direct reference to the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment. That's a dare if there ever was one.
JIM MARCH,
You've had me on the edge of my seat since yesterday, when you posted "Expect big news later today that I've been waiting on until I hear about these bills."
Is there something else??
Please tell us - I can't hold my breath any longer!
BB62
You've had me on the edge of my seat since yesterday, when you posted "Expect big news later today that I've been waiting on until I hear about these bills."
Is there something else??
Please tell us - I can't hold my breath any longer!
BB62
ClonaKilty
Member
Oh yeah, dude, it was. Earlier this year (or was it late last year?). And SCOTUS refused to hear it. The Brady Campaign, the so-called "VPC" and other anti-civil rights groups claimed the refusal as "upholding" the Silveira decision. Which of course, it didn't, but it didn't help the gun rights movement either.
I'm sure if you did a search here on THR for "Silveira" earlier this year you'd find a thread or two on it.
45R
Member
Glad they were vetoed. THR members in CA would be suffering from a stint of tendonitis from all the fingerprinting! 
jefnvk
Member
THe Michigan has bouncing around for a few weeks somewhere. Supposedly the head of the Judicial comittee is anti-gun control (thats what I've been told), so it probably won;t make it out.
Can the legislature can overturn the veto? How does that work in CA? If they can, whats the possibility?
Can the legislature can overturn the veto? How does that work in CA? If they can, whats the possibility?
Brett Bellmore
Member
What "excuses"? They turn down the cases without any comment, generally.
There are essentially two, and only two, ways the Supreme court is going to take a 2nd amendment case:
1. If one of the circuit courts issues a seriously pro-gun ruling, striking down gun control laws as unconstitutional. NOT an Emerson style ruling, making the right noises, but giving the win to the other side. So that the Court has to take the case, or let a significant part of the population have their rights back.
or,
2. A serious change in the composition of the court. Either to the point where they're so rabidly anti-gun they want to take the cases so they can kill the 2nd amendment personally, instead of delegating the dirty work to the circuit courts, or where they're sufficiently pro-gun that they're willing to turn things completely upside down, and overthrow all the nation's gun control laws in the cause of legal principle.
Ewok
Member
The usual 2/3 votes. SB1152 passed the assembly 41 to 38, so it's dead. SB1140 passed 41 to 34, with 3 of the missing or abstaining members being among those who voted against 1152. Both bills passed the senate 21 to 15.
Jim March
Member
Remember, there was a THIRD veto earlier: SB1177.
BB62: you mean this?
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102840
BB62: you mean this?
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102840
RealGun
Member
KABA article on Silveira v Lockyer denial
No doubt many have read this, but revisiting it ties in directly to more than one active thread.
No doubt many have read this, but revisiting it ties in directly to more than one active thread.
Jim March
Member
"Does it make any difference in the long run if anti gun bills are passed one at a time, or three at a time? It doesn't to me. Arnold just lost ALL of my support"
Fair enough, but here's your future: You will pick a solid pro-gun candidate and vote for him. Because this is California, he will lose by a large margin. Instead, we will get a Democrat or RINO governor. The demo will sign any anti-gun piece of legislation that reaches his desk. The RINO will be a loose cannon, signing some and vetoing others.
Tim
Fair enough, but here's your future: You will pick a solid pro-gun candidate and vote for him. Because this is California, he will lose by a large margin. Instead, we will get a Democrat or RINO governor. The demo will sign any anti-gun piece of legislation that reaches his desk. The RINO will be a loose cannon, signing some and vetoing others.
Tim
RealGun
Member
americanminutemen.org seems to be having an identity crisis. Reinhardt may have made a mess of Silveira, but the Pledge decision was entirely consistent with constitutional conservatism. The problem with being a purist is that we won't be comfortable with some decisions but will be obliged to understand them according to our general philosophy. If we become too selective, we have no philosophy.
While they state that they are not going to be done in over differences in regard to abortion, they have no problem siding with social conservatives on the Pledge issue. They should stick to their knitting. I was really attracted to the concept of that site until I read the Action alert on the Pledge issue. I am in conflict because of following closely the issues raised by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
It's unfortunate that everything Reinhardt does is going to be picked on. Nevertheless, I think impeaching him is entirely appropriate based upon Silveira alone. Had that case succeeded, I believe AB50 would never have come up.
While they state that they are not going to be done in over differences in regard to abortion, they have no problem siding with social conservatives on the Pledge issue. They should stick to their knitting. I was really attracted to the concept of that site until I read the Action alert on the Pledge issue. I am in conflict because of following closely the issues raised by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
It's unfortunate that everything Reinhardt does is going to be picked on. Nevertheless, I think impeaching him is entirely appropriate based upon Silveira alone. Had that case succeeded, I believe AB50 would never have come up.
GhostRider-Nine
member
And the little froggy will continue to swim in water that is getting hotter and hotter....heaven forbid it gets to hot all at once and the frog jumbs out. I have said it once and I will say it again...if you vote for the lessor of two evils, you get just what you deserve. And if Arnold is not a RINO, I don't know who is.
In California, it's an ugly political battle, plain and simple. One can fight it intelligently, taking hits and occasionally getting victories, or one can stomp around demanding "2A-all-the-way-or-the-highway" and lose every single time.
Even though I know damn well no one will do this, I suggest going to the California Secretary of State's web site and downloading the voter statistics. Put them into a spreadsheet and plot them. Since 1922 or so there has been a steady decline in the percentages of voters who declare themselves Republicans and Democrats, and in the past 30-40 years there has been a steady increase in "others". The voter demographics in this state have been changing for a long time, and if the trends continue the Democrats may not clearly be in power in 5 or 10 years.
Join the CRPA, stay informed, VOTE, donate whatever you can...
Tim
Edit: Oops, I don't mean 1922. I mean around 1935-39.
Even though I know damn well no one will do this, I suggest going to the California Secretary of State's web site and downloading the voter statistics. Put them into a spreadsheet and plot them. Since 1922 or so there has been a steady decline in the percentages of voters who declare themselves Republicans and Democrats, and in the past 30-40 years there has been a steady increase in "others". The voter demographics in this state have been changing for a long time, and if the trends continue the Democrats may not clearly be in power in 5 or 10 years.
Join the CRPA, stay informed, VOTE, donate whatever you can...
Tim
Edit: Oops, I don't mean 1922. I mean around 1935-39.
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
I think the Court should at least be challenged for a comment. It seems arrogant, disrespectful, and confrontational to waste the investment in due process and then not get it or any guidance for the future. If their was any basic judicial reform, a fundamental response would be mandatory even as token due process.
- Status