California goverment must be taught

Status
Not open for further replies.
wonder if its Atty Gen. "Moonbeam" Brown's action is in conflict with the Commerce Clause?
Click to expand...

Without speculating on commerce clause, why do you think it's Jerry Brown's fault?

Do you live in a state where the AG makes up laws? I doubt it.

He's just the Attorney General over the regulatory agency in charge of implementing laws the legislature passed.

Frankly, it's to AG Jerry Brown's credit that no attempts by certain lower-level minions to extend regulations beyond the scope of the law took place. We were worried at first that this could've led to things like 'approval' of the types of guns on the list in an attempt to drown out OLL sales, or that other tracking would take place and that we would have to fight the overextension of the law at the Office of Admin. Law. That appears not to be the case; the law was implemented as plainly as allowed.

Frankly, for gun matters Jerry Brown has been a dream compared to former AG (now Treasurer) Bill Lockyer.

Our gun issues in CA are with the legislature and because of term limits/jerrymandering, not due to Jerry Brown. And they're way way helped by a supinely useless Republican party who's traded off viability fo 'safe seats', lead by some Orange County biblethumpers who couldn't even elect a dogcatcher to statewide office.





Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
We in CA thank you for surrendering the the will of our government. You are doing exactly what they want. Thanks for the help.

I'm sure Sacramento is shaking in their boots right now. They are in deep depression over your actions. You sure did teach them a lesson.

Of course the 2A supporting citizens of CA are the one who are actually hurt by this, but screw them.

Good job! Way to hold the line. Obviously you're a part of the problem, not the solution.

You sure did teach them.... that what they are doing works.
 
NO LEO Sales.

I'm kind of okay with the No LEO sales thing. Just stop shipping everything to the PRK that a normal schmuck citizen (like me) can't buy. Let's see the LEO's rebuild their <2000 normal capacity magazines like I have to. Can't buy a new damn 30-round mag. Have to get the parts one at a time (or in a kit) and rebuild an old one. Never mind I have so many AR mags alone that I don't even know how many I have, must have a couple hundred at least.
Let the LEO's only get 10-Round mags with their CA "Safe" handguns like the rest of us schmucks. Hell I'd love to get an STI, not on the list. :fire: There are all kinds of handguns I'd like that are not on the list or on the list but crippled. FN Five-Seven comes to mind. What is the point in having a an ultra cool 20 round handgun with a crippled 10-Round mag?

Stop shipping anything a normal citizen can't have. Better yet, how about all the local CA guns shops stop selling to the local PD/CHP/Sheriff? See how they like that.
 
Last edited:
Staff H.Q., 1942.

"Well gentlemen, here's the plan.

Since the underground French Resistance in Occupied France hasn't ousted the collaborating Vichy Regime, we will no longer attempt to arm the Resistance until those blasted Vichys see the light and stop meddling with our efforts to arm the Resistance.

Now, let's all teach those Nazi-loving Vichys a lesson and make the Resistance's supply of guns dry up.
How will those collaborating Frenchies like it when the Resistance is forced to try to expel them with their bare hands? Ha, ha! "
 
There is an event in history we may want to look at for ideas.

Consider the Montgomery Alabama bus boycott as a possible source of ideas to consider.

Common themes:

1) There was no concession except to no longer exist that a minority could make to stop institutionalized racism. Same with Sacramento. California legislators will pile on new laws until we decide guns are not worth owning.

2) I'm sure there were people who said if Black people don't ride the bus, that's exactly what the bus company wants. Similarly, some are arguing a boycott by gun manufacturers is exactly what Sacramento wants.

3) By taking a stand on segregation that was highly publicized, the economic harm and public embarrassment caused a change that was impossible to make through voting. Is it possible something similar could happen here?

Finally, gun manufacturers and out of state FFL's are beginning to see the end game. If things continue as they are, California sales will become too expensive to support. Sacramento wins.

Yet, there are people in California thinking that doing the same thing over and over will produce different results.

If the boycott idea is rejected, fine, but new ideas are sorely needed.
 
This message is mildly sacastic and mostly true.

Refusing to sell guns to people because they can't have 'em? Did you think about this at all? It would make more sense if you were going to smuggle 10,000 M240Bs INTO California (spelling it California is just silly and not very witty either unless you are the guy who made it up) and handing them out for free to all the citizens who want one. Take radical action! This is why you should leave the boycotting to the hippies. At least they use it against the power that they feel is hurting them, as opposed to using it directly for the benefit of said power.

The whole argument make me think of Rush Limbaugh on the radio the other day, He said something along the lines of; we should let the economy continue to crash and burn because thats what it needs! What? The only people who want that to happen are the ones who are holding all the cards. Massively rich people maybe would love it I am sure but what about us? I just wrote this as an example of someone trying to convince the opressed to do the work of the oppressor. Which in my mind, is exactly what refusing to sell guns to other gun owners because they live in the greatest state in America. Hahahaha, yeah I said it. Hey at least I'm not from West Virginia, right Dick?
 
What about legal action?

I am just wondering, if the California law is in violation of the Commerce Clause, and maybe provisions in federal gun control laws, why not litigate it? I realize that the federal courts are full of liberal, presumably anti-gun, judges, but issues do get through.

Frankly, I have wondered this about the NRA for some time as well. Why don't they test anti-gun laws and regulations in the legal system, especially if Heller determines an individual has the right to bear arms? A boycott of some sort seems to be unworkable unless you can get nearly all FFLs to comply, which is doubtful. There are too many that will be willing to make the extra dollars afforded by lessened competition.

I would be willing to contribute to such a cause, and suspect there are many other gun owners who would as well.
 
in support of the trapped folks in California, i will offer "replacement parts kit" ak47 30rd magazines to friends behind the lines. they are of russian make(slabside mags), manufactuered in the 1950's, 56' to be exact. i will sell them for 65 shipped each, or will work a deal with you for multiple. kits will include followers, floor plates, springs and mag body. they will come disassembled. they will be in excellent condition. pm if anyone trapped behind lines is in need of replacement parts.
 
Sam and everyone else refusing to sell to CA shooters - I won't tell you how to run your business, but will ask that you at least reconsider part of your boycott.

My business (07/02) will continue to support the shooting public in CA. OTOH, we absolutely will NOT sell to CA law-enforcement and state agencies. Going a step further, we do not recognize any law-enforcement or government exemptions to gun-control laws across the nation. If a law-enforcement or state agency wants to buy one of our products, we will provide it only if the shooting public in that jurisdiction is also free to purchase it.

I believe that if manufacturers had adopted these policies ten or twenty years ago, gun control laws would have been DOA in the legislatures.

FWIW I do feel bad for the shooting public in CA. From what I understand, transfer fees of $100 for a title I firearm are common, and now some dealers are tacking on an additional "CFLC Fee" after July 1.

Finally, remember that this law was not opposed by the CA dealers or the NRA when it came before the legislature. This is a March 2007 letter from NRA Liason Paul Payne regarding the NRA's position on AB2521.

Rick,

As promised, I looked into the AB2521 issue from the 2006 California Legislative Session. I am told that AB2521 was a bill that was sponsored by the CA-DOJ and it was not opposed by the California Association Firearms Retailers (CAFR).

Also, I have conferred with NRA's legal team and other NRA Staff and received the following:

The following is a quick summary of the effect of the changes to Penal Code section 12072(f) by Assembly Bill 2521:

Under Penal Code section 12072(f) federal firearms licensees are required to obtain a unique verification number for the recipient (if, and only if, the recipient is also a federal firearms licensee) from the California Department of Justice via the internet. This requirement is akin to the EZ Check system implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

This section also requires the same seller to include a copy of the unique verification number along with the firearm to the recipient.

This requirement does not apply to private party sales processed through a California dealer where the out of state seller is an individual and not a federal firearms licensee.

This requirement is not in effect until July 1, 2008, and is subject to DOJ processing regulations.

Hopefully, this will calm-down anyone on the Internet, or other places, who thinks that the NRA didn't do it's (our) job. I look forward to reading the retractions and/or clarifications from those who quickly jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding AB2521.

If there is anything else I can do for you, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Paul
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I am so sick of out-of-stater's saying we cali's are "getting what we deserve" or "why don't they just vote those people out of office?" Gee what a novel idea. Why didn't we think of that? California is a big place with a lot of issues, and guns are only part of them. Yes, we have a lot liberals here, and in certain areas they definately outnumber the conservatives and/or owners. It's in these areas that the laws get passed. The rest of us are doing what we can...writing letters, making calls, involved in the NRA, etc. It only goes so far. Like I've said before, help us fight or keep quiet. Your name calling does nothing constructive. Especially from all the ex-Cali's who've moved out and now don't have to fight anymore.

Please help us in our fight...ship to the people. Don't play into the hands of the anti-gunner's.
 
Bubbles: Thank you for a very well thought out position and post. As a Californian I would LOVE to see every gun manufacturer and dealer cut off our state and local government. LOVE IT!!!!
 
I also want to see all dealers and manufacturers cut off all transaction with California. Citizens and ESPECIALLY government. If the cops start having to carry rocks to throw, then maybe we can get this crap reversed.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Ya know NYC said this about NY taxes. What I say is if you are so arragant to think one state not being a part of the union will ruin us, and in the case of NYC most folks from upstate would say buh bye.

You can go on with the fantasy that the US needs Cali to survive, but I think in reality the rest of the country would be ok without it or any other state that disappeared.
 
I think what is in order is a very agressive campaign in SF and LA to get people into (free) training classes. I am sure there is some grant, perhaps from the NRA, to get people at least a taste of shooting. Not sure of the details of how, but most people can be swayed to our side if given a good lesson and some solid logic.
 
Nothing is going to change for the better in Cal. until they have a state-wide meltdown like the L.A. Riots--but worse. The best thing is to cut off all arms, ammunition and supplies until the Cal. government can no longer arm it's law enforcement community. Will it hurt 'the people'? Sure, and they are the ones who've allowed this mess to continue, they are the ones that voted these schmucks in that outlaw guns. It's time to make Cal. sweat!
 
Learn 2 Shoot's idea is about as good an idea as I've seen for a while. I think it's worth a try.
Might be surprising how many folks would change their viewpoint if they had an interest in, and understanding of fireams. All they generally get is the media's "demonized" point of view.
Good thinking.
I also agree with the idea of supporting individuals aquisition of firearms in KA. Don't hurt the folks who care. Lobby the manufacturers and wholesalers to boycott all California state agencies regarding the sale of firearms.
 
Embargo

I think that this is the word we need to use. I know it's not the true use of the word but the effect would be the same. A complete and total firearms embargo of a state like California (for civilian and especially law enforcement) would finally force the issue. The OP is not the first to enact his own personal firearm embargo on California. If enough FFL's would follow suit, it would give the pro gunners in California the help they need. Actual real world consequences to ideological fantasies.
 
An embargo on the people who live here is exactly what they want. They don't want guns coming in, and are using this as a means to do it. If you don't want to sell guns to CA that is fine, but don't think you are helping anything. Not selling to the police and government is one thing, but taking guns out of normal people's hands is another. And that is exactly what some of you are proposing. I agree, companies and people should not ship guns or accessories to CA which normal people can't have. Make police deal with bullet buttons and "safe" handguns.
 
I am so sick of out-of-stater's saying we cali's are "getting what we deserve" or "why don't they just vote those people out of office?" Gee what a novel idea. Why didn't we think of that? California is a big place with a lot of issues, and guns are only part of them. Yes, we have a lot liberals here, and in certain areas they definately outnumber the conservatives and/or owners. It's in these areas that the laws get passed. The rest of us are doing what we can...writing letters, making calls, involved in the NRA, etc. It only goes so far. Like I've said before, help us fight or keep quiet. Your name calling does nothing constructive. Especially from all the ex-Cali's who've moved out and now don't have to fight anymore.

Please help us in our fight...ship to the people. Don't play into the hands of the anti-gunner's.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe, but only if you call us "rednecks" the way the other Californian did. Insult us, beat us, kick us. Tell us how sick of us you are. Then watch the other Californians explain that they don't belong to the NRA because it doesn't benefit them. We enjoy a little of that sweet talking before the romance begins.
 
Sorry Wolf, but your idea won't work. What would keep the buyer for a PD from going to a civilian supply store to buy ammo or weapons?

The embargo has to be total. No guns, supplies or ammo to any FFL listed in California is the only way to bring the politicians to their senses.
 
Nothing would keep them from doing that. But your idea is exactly what they want. No guns coming in. Much easier for them to regulate what is already here. And if you want to do what is keeping them from doing ___. What would keep other government agencies from sending stuff to them? Nothing. You won't be able to fully stop them from having guns. What you are doing with a complete embargo is what the law makers hope. Taking guns away from CA.
 
Nothing would keep them from doing that. But your idea is exactly what they want. No guns coming in. Much easier for them to regulate what is already here. And if you want to do what is keeping them from doing ___. What would keep other government agencies from sending stuff to them? Nothing. You won't be able to fully stop them from having guns. What you are doing with a complete embargo is what the law makers hope. Taking guns away from CA.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly the point--the lawmakers need to find out just how horrible life gets when you have a state chock full of criminals on the loose, and nobody (including the LEO's) can defend themselves. The majority group in the legislature thinks that guns are so bad, so let's show them just how horrible their utopian vision of a gun free world really is.

And BTW, you'd be welcome in Nevada!
 
Well, maybe, but only if you call us "rednecks" the way the other Californian did. Insult us, beat us, kick us. Tell us how sick of us you are. Then watch the other Californians explain that they don't belong to the NRA because it doesn't benefit them. We enjoy a little of that sweet talking before the romance begins.
Click to expand...
So every gun owner in your state is an NRA member? No? So then the gun laws in your state are the fault of every gun owner in that state in general and your personal fault in particular?

Or would it be stupid and obnoxious to think that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
New California DOJ CFLC Program: Bad News
Replies
2
Views
611
Bubbles
B
S
  • Locked
Gun manufacturers continue to aid gun banners
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
langenc
L
M
  • Locked
Problem with California FFL Transfer
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
A
  • Locked
Gun Manufacturers: Just say NO to California!
Replies
24
Views
1K
G1FAL
G
M
  • Locked
Issa: Hope for California?
Replies
16
Views
752
Maxinquaye
M
Back
Top