New California Gun and Ammo laws

ddestruel said:

Gavin Newsom’s bill has all the right phrases, assault magazines, high capacity, background check. those phrases register and sell with the incompetent voters


I can pickup several other recent ballot measures but these make the point... and this idea of ballot measures to tie up the popular "background check" scare while using it as the vehicle to accomplish mush more is gaining traction nationally. there is talk in Montana about doing something of the sort and missoula is ground zero expect to see someone put something on the ballot in that state regulating private sales within a few years

One counter to that is FFL's have the ability to refuse to perform private transfers, gifting ect if these clowns require background checks via ballot measures on ammo transfers and firearms then the next step is shove it upon the local law enforcement. much like vin plate verification on a car, or state ID. the state has to provide the service it requires for free. (that would probably require something creative from the US congress nationally tying state funding and it as a civil right to states attempting to force such things)

Our biggest problem in my opinion is that we arent countering them on their turf worst of all they own the marketing language and playing field right now.

Their tactic is being vague, picking hot button issues that are well received because the public does not and will never connect the dots on the un-intended consequences. they use the hot button issue as the vehicle to get more in under the radar....


Our Fault: We revert to “shall not be infringed”, ”Gun rights”, ”My cold dead hands” or we use the word ”second amendment” [SIZE=“3"]unfortunately to the mind numb voters we don’t appeal nor does that connect yet we need their vote to protect or help bolster some barriers[/SIZE] We use facts that make sense they use hyper sensitive terms and words to incite fear.


So an option ive been sharing because so far not much else is out there yet i know everyone's wheels are turning is counter with an attack that recognizes the issue with the public IS THAT THIS IS BIGGER THAN GUNS and needs to be sold as something un affiliated with guns but that gives US a vehicle or platform to backstop their efforts and challenge them on different grounds in court. Pursue something that can garner broader public support , and catch the blind voters in the box with its first two or three lines.

After a few cocktails with a CA superior court judge who is a 2nd amendment supporter he indicated that without something changing constitutionally the courts will continue to defer to the legislatures on many issues and in anti states like CA he said our hopes were dim and the courts have no guidance to defer to....and the public isnt too savy on gun rights nor hugely supportive of changing the status quo if it was on the ballot unless it was sold differently than a "gun nut ballot measure"

But if on the ballot if you saw something, a constitutional amendment to the CA state constitution protecting a broad set of rights but coined as a means of restraining bonehead politicians and special deal making..... its a long shot but at this point it feels like we need a hail mary. And being worded broadly you’d stand a better chance of ensnaring libertarians, liberals, and other independent voters with angst towards back room deals.....

Instead of attacking it as a 2nd amendment protection you attach the concept of restraint to multiple groups who we wouldn’t normally associate with and bring forth a measure aimed at cleaning up politics. (all while giving ourselves a solid tool to challenge things.)

=================================================

[COLOR=“Red"]The equal protection amendment of CA:[/COLOR]
_________________________________

Equal application of the law amendment for state lawmakers, civilians and civil servants of ca. All laws or ballot measures passed in the state of ca that impact enumerated rights identified in the us constitution (bill of rights) or state constitution must be narrowly tailored when applied to the private law abiding citizens and enforced equally. Laws and policies that affect law abiding citizens are to be subject to strict scrutiny review and that civilians and civil servants can not receive exemptions, special privileges ect that are not equally applied and available to all other law abiding citizens. Lawmakers may not exempt themselves nor may they refuse to defend these enumerated rights in court. No portion of this amendment is intended to prevent the state from regulating criminal acts, felons or the mentally ill.

==================================================


Now for the point here if we need to combat this with an offensive and you want to catch the mind numb while giving ourselves leverage in the courtroom later..... not just blocking Newsom’s bill or other ballot measures around the US but giving ourselves a tool or some traction later to fight back with some confidence.... right now the intermediate scrutiny the courts are falling back on is not giving our attorneys much help.......

Its coming to a state near you......it worked in Washington and several others, they are fine tuning the language to get public buy in..... how do we combat that?

Click to expand...

BeoBill said:

Now suppose instead of asking this question for approximately the 10,000th time, you come up with a possible answer that we could analyze and discuss?

Click to expand...

ddestruel said:

Since you skipped the two suggestions.... inside that long post you quoted.

feel free to analyze or discuss those.

not saying they are correct avenues but not sure they are a dead horse either since ive not seen either attempted in the last 35-40 years.

Click to expand...

BeoBill said:

What two suggestions? You mean the proposed ballot question and having cocktails with a superior court judge who is a 2nd amendment supporter? Perhaps if you could point them out it would help those of us whose eyes glaze over by the third paragraph of your monograph.

Click to expand...