• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun opponents up in arms as California AG Jerry Brown aids NRA

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/23/BAFI1AO83D.DTL

It may come as a surprise to many of his Democratic supporters, but Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Jerry Brown has gone to bat for the National Rifle Association.

The NRA's cause: urging the U.S. Supreme Court to guarantee the ability of gun owners across the land to keep and bear arms.

Last year, the high court struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., ruling for the first time that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms applies to individuals who keep a gun at home for self-defense. But the court made it clear the ruling applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

Now, gun advocates are challenging Chicago's handgun ban, asking the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment equally applies to the states. And there was no shortage of states - 34 in all - jumping on the bandwagon in support of the court hearing the case.

In July, before the court agreed to take the case, Brown went so far as to file his own friend-of-the-court brief asking that Chicago's gun ban be overturned - arguing that if the court doesn't act, "California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes."

His stance has angered a number of gun control proponents.

Julie Leftwich, legal director of Legal Community Against Violence, said this isn't simply about Brown defending the Second Amendment - it also marks a dramatic turnabout from the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Bill Lockyer, a staunch gun control advocate.

"Jerry Brown hasn't shown leadership in the legislative arena related to the issue of gun violence prevention ... and he hasn't sponsored or weighed in on any significant gun bills," Leftwich told The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci.

Brown's pro-gun stand has also left some San Francisco officials scratching their heads. They're awaiting a ruling in the Chicago case to see how it might affect two local gun-rights lawsuits.

"I'm just gratified that the attorney general in his filing has acknowledged that California has been a national leader in passing commonsense legislation to regulate firearms," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

With the high court now agreeing to hear the Chicago case, the only question remaining was whether Brown - amid lobbying from both sides in the fight - would weigh in with another brief on the case's merits by Monday's deadline.

The usually talkative Brown didn't respond to our requests to be interviewed, but on Friday, his spokeswoman, Christine Gasparac, said the attorney general wouldn't be submitting another brief.

"He believes we have nothing more to add," she said.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

When pro-criminals and anti-criminals agree...

You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

N6ATF wrote:
"Jerry Brown hasn't shown leadership in the legislative arena related to the issue of gun violence prevention ... and he hasn't sponsored or weighed in on any significant gun bills," Leftwich told The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci.

...

"I'm just gratified that the attorney general in his filing has acknowledged that California has been a national leader in passing commonsense legislation to regulate firearms," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.
BBBWWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA!!!!!

(ADDITIONAL HAHAs DELETED BY ADMIN FOR FORUM READABILITY)

Oh man [pant], it hurts.... [pant]....

Fortunately, I know they are serious.... Were they not, that would have been even funnier and I might have died.... Whew....
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

commonsense legislation to regulate firearms

This is a completely arbitrary phrase the antis use to appeal to uninformed individuals in regards to gun control history.

This phrase could mean Nazi style gun control, complete citizen disarmament, a simple regulation that only permits American/Californian citizens to purchase firearms, or no regulation at all.

Don't fall for this "commonsense legislation" euphemistic garbage!

Watch "Innocents Betrayed" to learn how the gun control crowd allows state sponsored genocide to be committed against defenseless victims throughout the 20th century: www.innocentsbetrayed.com
 

AtackDuck

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
214
Location
King George, Virginia, USA
imported post

Statesman wrote:
commonsense legislation to regulate firearms

This is a completely arbitrary phrase the antis use to appeal to uninformed individuals in regards to gun control history.

This phrase could mean Nazi style gun control, complete citizen disarmament, a simple regulation that only permits American/Californian citizens to purchase firearms, or no regulation at all.

Don't fall for this "commonsense legislation" euphemistic garbage!

Watch "Innocents Betrayed" to learn how the gun control crowd allows state sponsored genocide to be committed against defenseless victims throughout the 20th century: http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com
Actually, I have started using the phrase in many ofmy rebuttals to the anti's. I get a special tingle up my leg :pknowing that I'm using their own ammo against them. I recently referred to the proposed - CCW in Virginia restaurants -as a "commonsensegun law" as well as Virginia's preemption laws. Sweet!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

AtackDuck wrote:
Statesman wrote:
commonsense legislation to regulate firearms
This is a completely arbitrary phrase the antis use to appeal to uninformed individuals in regards to gun control history.

.....snipped
Actually, I have started using the phrase in many ofmy rebuttals to the anti's. I get a special tingle up my leg :pknowing that I'm using their own ammo against them. I recently referred to the proposed - CCW in Virginia restaurants -as a "commonsensegun law" as well as Virginia's preemption laws. Sweet!
That ladies and gentleman is how to turn a phrase. :celebrate

Support reasonable gun laws too - like the 2nd Amendment, unabridged version.

I like it. I am going to use it. Consider it stolen. :lol:

Moderators take note - you've just been offered the chance to steal the antis thunder.

Yata hey
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

I always thought the 2nd Amendment was a "common sense gun law as written???, and as aforementioned "unabridged version".
Guess I don't have common sense, altho' according to Thomas Payne I do.
Keep your powder dry!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

KansasMustang wrote:
I always thought the 2nd Amendment was a "common sense gun law as written???, and as aforementioned "unabridged version".
Guess I don't have common sense, altho' according to Thomas Payne I do.
Keep your powder dry!
+1 as written.

2nd Amendment, unabridged = Containing the original content; not condensed, reduced or shortened - nothing deleted.

Yata hey
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

Huck wrote:
I'm not sure if having 'ol Moonbeam on our side is good or bad. :uhoh:

Haha, as a 22 year old I did not have theexperience of having moonbeamas my Governer. Though we gotta face the facts, he is going to be our next Governer so this is a win in our books. Hopefully AB 357 can make its way to his desk as Governer.

Edit: The more I think of it, this move just doesn't make sense as a Democrat. He will only lose the Dem. voters with this when he runs for election. I can only imagine the advertisements that will run against him in the primaries.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
Huck wrote:
I'm not sure if having 'ol Moonbeam on our side is good or bad. :uhoh:

Haha, as a 22 year old I did not have theexperience of having moonbeamas my Governer. Though we gotta face the facts, he is going to be our next Governer so this is a win in our books. Hopefully AB 357 can make its way to his desk as Governer.

Edit: The more I think of it, this move just doesn't make sense as a Democrat. He will only lose the Dem. voters with this when he runs for election. I can only imagine the advertisements that will run against him in the primaries.

I'm not so sure Moonbeam would be a "win" for Kalifornia, but he can't be much worse than the Dimbeam you're stuck with now. Arnie has been pretty liberal and hasn't accomplished anything he could have. You cannot negotiate, compromise or share power with leftists. They must be crushed in all their endeavors COMPLETELY, until the worst of them give up and move to a country that has already been destroyed by their philosophies.

There's one real close, and I'd personally delight in helping these bed wetting parasites float south on some cuban refugee's tub.

:celebrate
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

haha very extreme approach but I would not shed a tear if it happened. Well I just meant if we are forced fed a cereal we hate in California, its a win that there is some sugar on top of it.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

"Jerry Brown hasn't shown leadership in the legislative arena related to the issue of gun violence prevention ... and he hasn't sponsored or weighed in on any significant gun bills," Leftwich told The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci.

Significant to her anti-gun, er, "violence" organization, that is...

I read through their Top Ten Myths About Gun Violence in America, and while some "myths" are indeed myths, others are false, and still others are simply points of arguement to create ever more restrictive legislation.

Source: http://www.lcav.org/library/reports_analyses/Ten_Myths.pdf

We must remember that "LCAV is a public interest law center." Says so right on their brochure. Their income derives, in part, from legal representation. Thus, it's in their best interests to ensure the laws aren't simple, straightforward, and effective.

If laws were simple, straightforward, and effective, no one would need their services to "conduct legal research, analyzes existing and emerging policy strategies, reviews proposed legislation, generates model regulations..." blah blah blah.

It's a parasitic organization. The best way to get rid of parasites is to starve them. Don't contribute.

Instead, write your legislators in support of simplifying gun control laws.

Interestingly, it appears this has been what's happening, albeit slowly.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

since9 wrote:
"snip.....
I read through their Top Ten Myths About Gun Violence in America, and while some "myths" are indeed myths, others are false, and still others are simply points of arguement to create ever more restrictive legislation.

Source: http://www.lcav.org/library/reports_analyses/Ten_Myths.pdf
One of the unwritten rules of courtesy on OCDO is that adequate duct tape and/or beverage warning be given - this document required both. :shock: :)

Yata hey
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Mixed feelings about Brown. As a strong supporter of Reagan who he replaced I actually admired a lot of his policies but as a Nam vet I wasn't to pleased about his anti-war activities. However he wasn't a big government guy and he didn't play well with lobbyists so in that respect I liked him.

That state needs a friend of the people right now and other than the libertarian candidates I see nobody in California who is pro gun except all the conservative blue collar types who were disgusted and sat home on election day and let the liberals take the day. Wacko ideas like powder identification, primer micro-stamps, no lead bullets, and on and on and on have really made it hard on gun owners.

Places I used to shoot at when I was stationed in Long Beach and San Diego are long gone to shooters. Partly slob shooters fault but more wacko left policy than the crumbs and bums among our numbers. If Brown can stop the gun grabbers and reverse some of the more onerous provisions of their gun control legislation than I am all for him. I still would find it hard to vote for him though. Ex Republican and now long time Libertarian I am still to conservative to welcome him without a jaundiced eye.
 

Tack

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
35
Location
Vista, California, USA
imported post

I am speculating on the mechanics of politics. Jerry is appealing, or trying to appeal, to the independent voters in California. He is the gubernatorial candidate for the left and they really have no where else to go. Jerry Brown can therefore position himself as far right as he wants.

Tack
 

BluesStringer

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
30
Location
Madison, AL
imported post

I escaped from Commiefornia 18 years ago, but grew up there and know all I need to know about Brown. He is anything but "pro-gun." Whatever reason he's voicing support for McDonald, it's certainly not that he's suddenly had some epiphany about the righteousness of the 2nd Amendment or whatever. He's probably playing the odds that McDonald will win on extremely narrow legal reasoning, just like Heller did, and as such, he will have the claim of "pro-gun" for you righties out there, and still have the authority to regulate the heck outta guns as he sees fit. Not sure what I mean? Look into how the ban in D.C. has changed for the better since Heller. It hasn't. Like the Assault Weapons Ban, the new D.C. gun laws are cosmetic. It's still virtually impossible to buy or own a handgun in D.C. How many brothers and sisters in arms do we have on this website from D.C.? If it's above double-digits I'd be surprised. If it's zero or one or two, I wouldn't be surprised.

As I understand it, McDonald is only asking for Heller to be incorporated. Heller was a victory, no doubt, but it was also the only truly 2nd Amendment-only-issue case the Court had ever taken, and as such, as is their habit, they ruled as narrowly as they could while still upholding the individual right interpretation of the amendment. My guess is Brown is positioning himself to get the votes of 2nd Amendment supporters, but as soon as he's elected, he'll toe whatever narrow line a win in McDonald provides him without actually crossing it, but still regulate y'all to death. Either way, a McDonald win or not, if you elect Brown, you will drown in a tsunami of liberty-killing legislation.

When it comes to opposing gun-control laws, I wouldn't believe Jerry Brown if his tongue came notarized! And neither should you!

Blues
 

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Had a look at that LCAV brochure and it really infuriates me when people use numbers out of context to try to pursuade people in the absence of credible facts. To put it in context(according to their published numbers):

270 million firearms and 30,000 deaths =.00011% of firearms were used to take a life.

270 million firearms and 40,000 injuries = .00026% of firearms caused non-fatal injuries.

270 million firearms and 400,000 gun-related crimes =.14% of firearms were used in crimes.

To contrast:

254 million cars on the road accounted for 42,636 deaths(.00016%), 2.9 million injuries(1.1%) and 3.06 million non-injury traffic collisions(1.2%).

I'll look into their data sources a bit more and see if I can't debunk some more of their mis-information.
 
Top