Quantcast

California goverment must be taught

Discussion in 'Activism' started by Sam, Jun 14, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sam

    Sam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,385
    Location:
    Alamogordo, New Mexico
    Actually after studying the guy and who his mentors were throughout his life he is not a Socialist, he is a Marxist

    Sam
     
  2. .38 Special

    .38 Special Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,718
    Whatever they want. It's their business. I just don't think it's right to let anyone labor under the delusion that "I'm going to teach Californians a lesson by not selling to them!" is at all helpful, except to the gun banners.

    Beyond that, Archigos speaks for me, on this topic.
     
  3. Right Wing Wacko

    Right Wing Wacko Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Any boycott of CA to be effective has to include more than just guns.

    Do not buy anything that comes from CA, and do not sell ANYTHING to them. Do do any less would just be giving the anti's exactly what they want.
     
  4. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475

    Do you like veggies? fruit? A very large chunk of the produce grown in this country is grown in CA. We also pay the most in taxs to the federal gov, but since you don't need or want that money please write your congressmen expressing that.
     
  5. wuchak

    wuchak Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    596
    Location:
    Shawnee, KS
    I'm curious to see the Federal response to this new measure, especially the BATFE. Shipping handguns across state lines would fall under the interstate commerce clause and the Feds have sole jurisdiction there, and for good reason. The Feds have put the regulation of firearms in the hands of the BATFE and THEY make the rules about how and when guns can be shipped from one of their licensed agents ( FFL) to another. The state of CA can say what happens once the gun in is CA and can make people engaged in the business of selling guns in their state jump through whatever hoops the want but they cannot regulate interstate commerce. I don't think this regulation will stand for long. Fed don't like people trying to usurp their power.

    I also wonder how exactly CA plans on enforcing their state laws on residents of other states where they clearly have no jurisdiction. I don't see how they could ever arrest anyone for violating this.
     
  6. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475

    They don't have to, the batfe will do that for them. not that it really matters as its not the shiper that has to worry...
     
  7. Sam

    Sam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,385
    Location:
    Alamogordo, New Mexico
    Not only are there issues with unlawful restraint of interstate trade, there is also a privacy issue involved.

    Although it is not a secret and everybody but the tabletops advertise, just how and where did the California DOJ acquire the list of all the various ffls in the country to do their mailing?

    I have a feeling that they got it from an agency that has no legal authorization to distribute it for that particular purpose.

    There may be a cause for legal action against that agency although we would have to get one of our gun rights organizations to bankroll that fight.

    Sam
     
  8. Owens

    Owens Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    373
    Location:
    Texas!
    You can request a national listing of FFL's from the BATFE. $15.00
    (per the atf website)
     
  9. JCF

    JCF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    700
    LOL!

    Yes, yes... all of you PLEASE teach the anti-gun establishment here in CA a good stern lesson by refusing to sell me a gun. That's showing them.


    LOL!!!

    Yeah, ok. Give that a try why dontcha.

    Hey... how come you didn't all teach the PRK a lesson by advocating the closure of the Berkeley recruiting station and refusing to accept enlistees from this area??? You missed a golden opportunity there. I'm sure they would have lost LOTS of sleep over that move also.
     
  10. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    I too concur with the sentiment of not abandoning the average joe but instead refusing to do business with the state, the politicals, and the police
     
  11. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    yes, but the majority of the produce in the grocery store comes from elswhere, new zealand, chile, wherever
     
  12. TwitchALot

    TwitchALot Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    California
    Sell to the people, not the police. Remember, the entire point of California gun control is to disarm the people, not the people who make the laws or the people who enforce them. They want to play hardball, let's play hardball ourselves. Sell to the people, and not to the police. If large companies feel the urge to sell to California because it has a huge market (from a police standpoint), at the very least, don't give them any breaks.
     
  13. wolf13

    wolf13 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    Everytime a new law in CA comes up its the same type of responses. Don't send anything to CA, and dont buy anything from CA. There is no logic at all in those statements.

    When you decide not to ship to CA to show the government you aren't happy, you get nothing positive done, and something negative done. They have moved on from straight banning, and are trying as many backdoor bans as possible. They are getting what they want in that they have made out of state FFLs not want to do business in CA. Thank you for supporting the bill. You can think that you are doing something positive to show them, but you aren't. Most likely, they won't even notice. If you want to do something, don't send guns to the police, or any government employed job which needs one.
     
  14. Owens

    Owens Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    373
    Location:
    Texas!
    Interesting approach. Not selling to Joe and Jane citizen would only do what the bill is intending. Making it MORE difficult to obtain firearms.
    Instead, sell all you can to the citizenry of California. However to the state, the counties, the cities, sell nothing. No firearms, no ammunition, no supplies, no parts. That is how to get the lawmaker's attention! Make them the exclusioned sect.
     
  15. billwiese

    billwiese Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Thank you, Wolf13, for "getting it".

    I believe Californians will understand that this extra unfortunate step (checking/printing out from DOJ website) does take a bit of time and would not mind seeing the shipping FFL compensated a few bucks' extra.

    We will be accumulating a list of non-CA FFLs willing to be CFLC-compliant and ship to CA, and will publish them on Calguns.net . I'm sure these FFLs will enjoy the extra business from folks who like to support those who support us.


    Bill Wiese
    San Jose CA
     
  16. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,411
    Location:
    Texas
    You know folks, not everyone in CA who votes liberal, votes that way because they are anti-gun. There are a myriad of other reasons people vote liberal- gay rights for instance, or being against the Iraq War- neither of which have any qualification on gun rights. For some people, other issues outweigh gun ownership. In that case, they vote for what they want in other rights. I'd be willing to bet a lot of San Francisco residents could care less about who owns a gun, but I bet they definitely care about being able to marry the partner of their choosing. So, seeing as they have the choice between a Republican who is pro-gun but would restrict gay marriage and an anti-Democrat who is pro-gay (but anti gun) they go with the Dem. Their decision has nothing to do with guns, but everything to do with something else. Not everyone in CA "gets what they deserve".

    So, while I think it's reasonable to punish CA law enforcement or other state officials- which is what Ron Barrett did - I think it is totally unreasonable to punish the civilians. Barrett stopped selling .50cals because they prohibited citizens from having those guns, what some of you FFLs are proposing is NOT the same thing. Citizens aren't prohibited from having your guns, the state just makes it a pain in the ass to get them. I think some of you are falling right into the trap the antis are springing.
     
  17. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,411
    Location:
    Texas
    I'd like to add a little more food for thought:

    I think with the impending Heller decision going in our favor, a lot of these anti-gun people are going nuts. They're going to lose a HUGE amount of ground. They're probably aware that people from their state are going to go to court arguing for the right to own AWs, get CCW, etc. And the people are probably going to win. There will no doubt be an outcry about lack of regulation. My theory has long been that ultimately, we may see a situation where you can get what you want (like an AK with a 75 round drum) in whatever state you want (like California or NY) and in a timely manner (standard NICS check time), but that the state will be able to require things like registration, provided it doesn't add a large financial or time burden upon your purchase. None of this infringes on your ability to own a weapon. All it does is make it a pain in the ass. I'm betting that California is seeing this and that's why they're doing this. The law only affects FFLs, who will find selling weapons to CA more of a hassle. They're trying to get us to shoot ourselves in the foot. On the plus side, if you comply with them now, you may find yourselves in an optimal position when the CA AWB gets overturned.
     
  18. Sam

    Sam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,385
    Location:
    Alamogordo, New Mexico
    Wolf 13 read my original post.
    No transfers in,
    still work on private stuff
    nothing for govt or it's agents.
    Sam
     
  19. harrygunner

    harrygunner Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,045
    "get it"?

    How about getting that this incremental encroachment will not stop until we stop it.

    A comparison to most of the rest of the U.S.A. shows how ANY new gun restriction is fair game.

    - I have a CCW in Cali and a couple of other state. The other states want to know I can safely handle a gun and I'm not a felon. Cali wants that plus a "good reason", credit checks, interviews. Even after eight or so renewals, they still interview me. Paraphrasing the latest interviewer, "Don't want just anyone running around with a gun.".

    - "Safe" gun list? LEO's can buy "unsafe" guns. If your out-of-state mommy or daddy buys and gifts you an "unsafe" gun, fine. Otherwise, forget owning a gun that can be bought in nearly every other part of the country.

    - Magazine capacity limits. No need to elaborate.

    - Wooden or plastic grips or other innocuous pieces added to a rifle makes it illegal. Embarrassing.

    - Micro-stamping. Science and logic did not overcome the passing of this law.

    Long list of gun store paperwork, "cooling off" wait periods, even if you have a dozen guns at home and one in the car, citizens finger printed to buy ammo in some counties. Just on and on.

    Perhaps the willingness of California gun owners to keep taking it is the problem.
     
  20. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,973
    I wonder if its Atty Gen. "Moonbeam" Brown's action is in conflict with the Commerce Clause?
     
  21. jhansman

    jhansman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,080
    Hear, hear! All the OP is doing is giving in to the larger agenda here, which is to prevent out of state dealers from shipping firearms to Calif. What you ought to instead, IMHO, is what Bud's and other dealers are doing and register. Then, sell as many guns as you can to us here. Then you are showing Sacramento something.

    We'll keep working to reverse these idiotic laws they keep dreaming up (and oust the morons who pass them), but til then we need the help of every out of state dealer to show these clowns they can't abridge our rights.
     
  22. savetheclaypigeons

    savetheclaypigeons Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Messages:
    245
    Location:
    Louisville
    so well stated it should be echoed twice

    big thumbs up from me.
     
  23. .38 Special

    .38 Special Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,718
    And you would have us do what? Join the NRA? Done. Join our local pro-gun organization? Done. Write letters to our congressmen, attorney general, mayor, etc? Vote against every anti-gunner who comes down the pike? Blanket our newspapers with pro-gun letters? Done, done, and done.

    But obviously, because there is a huge voting bloc that severely outnumbers the pro-gunners in this state, and they simply outweigh us at the polls, that means that we're not "doing enough" and therefore deserve whatever we get.

    Or maybe you're one of those who think we should take up our guns and start a shooting war in downtown L.A., just to demonstrate to the rest of the voters why gun laws should be relaxed?

    Or maybe, like a bunch of other "I have got mine" people on this thread, you're just outgassing without any real concern for the plight of your fellow Americans.

    New rule: if you haven't got anything positive to say, and you're not a Californian, pipe down. :fire:
     
  24. danweasel

    danweasel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    Alaska
    Hahaha,

    California makes some of you guys a bit jealous huh? Real mature...

    Dan of Nevada City, CA
     
  25. harrygunner

    harrygunner Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,045
    I am in California and as you mentioned, everything that has been done has not worked.

    Time to do something else.

    What if we embrace manufacturers' boycotts, insist on them.

    Use the boycotts to expose the economic and social consequences of Sacramento's agenda. Call Sacramento's bluff.

    If manufactures supported us in a boycott, would enough negative publicity arise to embarrass California legislators into backing off?

    Maybe, only in the extreme would it become clear that their agenda does nothing against crime, only hurts the economy and annoys the law abiding.

    You've probably heard the story about the hound dog sitting on a nail, but it did not hurt enough for him to move? Maybe the boycott would cause enough pain for everyone become aware of what we've been experiencing for years.

    I don't have the answers, but we need new ideas and approaches. The answer is likely to require us to pay a price for a while.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice